muichoi

Me too. It no longer works, however. It's not us, it's the potatoes.

I don't fry chips at home, too much like hard work, and then there's all that oil to deal with. I certainly can't see myself runnng back and forth to the fridge with trays. I'm more likely to do potato wedges in the oven as a far easier and slightly healthier alternative. ← Fair enough....although if you did you might understand the real reason for Heston's chips.

Or Brighton. I don't want crisp on the outside, fluffy on the inside chips with my large cod and mushy peas, I want a huge mound of soggy, fatty potato goodness. Everyone knows Heston's method, the real mystery is how British chippies manage to avoid serving crisp chips, even when they are forced to hand over a portion that's come straight out of the fryer and not languished for that all important period in the hot cupboard. That's real culinary magic. ← Andy, can you make reliably crisp chips from fresh potatoes at home? I now find it almost impossible with modern potatoes, whether the way they are grown or stored I don't know. This is I think the real reason for Heston's method, which works reliably. Nor do I know a single london restaurant where successful chips are made-this is becoming a gastronomic holy grail. The Potato council are very unhelpful.

Yes-and I suppose it's extravagant for the home cook to have two separate oil baths on the go. It did look rather good, though. The chips are easy, and indeed with modern potatoes this is about the only way to make them. Turbot is a dubious choice, partly on economic grounds but mostly because I think that this noble fish deserves to be cooked with its bones. I'm going to have to try that batter-though I imagine that 300ml of vodka must leave quite a lot of taste behind. Presumably pure alcohol would be even more effective.

I would suggest two highly inauthentic solutions to broken beans-first is to soak with plenty of soda, then rinse very thorougly, second is to cook in a very low oven after bringing just to the boil on the stove, no lid. this gives a very good result, but the meats look wrong-Lacon and Tocino/panceta are absolutely essential in a dish of such few parts.

I think the lack of movement shows great seriousness of intent. Proper food cultures recognise that the pursuit of perfection is infinitely more interesting than being 'innovative or challenging'.

A good risotto is a rich dish-it's just that you aren't meant to eat much of it.

It really is an absurd idea. Risotto, like pasta, can only be a first course, both gastronomically and nutritionally. The italians understand this, so why can't we?

It looks delicious-I do wonder why you add Sa-Cha sauce when you already pretty much have all the ingredients of that sauce.

Blimey, he really must be skint. To be fair, although the column sounds like the text of a free advertisement dictated while pissed, the recipe is authentic Marco brilliance.

Looks great-but reading it I'm surprised by the need for extra salt when simmering, let alone when serving.

But why not 'Halibutfish' or the more common 'Tunafish'? I accept that it's pedantic, but why else ask for feedback? Codfish, as I say, has another shade of meaning and is normally used to describe the salted article. Just seems a bit silly and pretentious, that's all.

If indeed it is a correct usage, then I apologise. It nevertheless seems self-important.£24 is more normal. What about 'codfish'?

No it's not!

Definitely better-codfish usually refers to salt cod, is this what you mean?otherwise 'cod' is much better. There's also no justification for 'twenty-four pounds' as opposed to 'twenty four pounds'!

L'Epicure!

Plain flour and water is traditional and best-and it's much better if you can lightly salt the fish several hours in advance. It's the chips that are the problem-not a matter of technique but of finding suitable potatoes. I did find some Pentland Javelins the other week which fully lived up to their billing. What's funny is that there are many, many establishments specifically set up and equipped for this one dish-and almost all fail utterly miserably.

Anyone know where I can buy these pestilential crayfish? they taste pretty good!

Scott is exactly right in his posts above, and is to be heeded.

I love korean food, and have eaten it extensively here in London, in korea, and in most of Europe. In every town with any kind of population, there is a really genuine korean restaurant, because koreans can't live without their food. The thing is, it's completely unadaptable, which to me is no bad thing. It's on the whole unrefined and at its best that way-the best places to eat in Seoul are the ones where you sit on the floor. The problem is the inability to let food taste of itself, except in the many superb beef establishments, so that unless one is addicted to it it soon becomes extremely boring as everything tastes pretty much the same-sesame oil being at least as much a culprit as garlic and chilli powder, probably more so-and all that barbecued meat, the hallmark of entertaining, is far too prevalent-korean food excels much more in its stews.

I've heard good things from Chinese friends about The Laughing Buddha, but haven't yet been.

Other names that spring to mind are Adnams, Raeburn Fine Wines, Seckford wines and Tanners, who can all easily deliver to London.

Berry Bros and Justerini and Brooks have excellent selections and service, and the former has a great website, though not the best prices. a lot of the best sources don't do mixed cases, but some that do are Stone, Vine and Sun, Uncorked and Lea and Sandeman. Falcon Vintners have a great selection of Piedmontese wines.

An oil importer told me that it's not possible to make a genuine truffle oil that lasts for more than a day or two. Certainly I've never found a genuine one. The trouble with it is that it mimics some of the qualities of the real thing so well that the real thing is slightly devalued-like frozen peas.

That's a truly great book-I can't find mine, but I don't remember complaints about the family either.