Jump to content

macrosan

legacy participant
  • Posts

    2,214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by macrosan

  1. A report in this week's Economist states that Jacques Chirac and his wife between them spent over 2.1M Euros ($1.2M) at the public expense on fruit and vegetables in the 8 years Chirac was mayor of Paris, before he became (laughably) President of France That works out at $177 a day, and is quite separate from entertainment, for which they had another budget !!! The article is aptly entitled "Let them eat foie gras" I wonder why Chirac's affairs are being investigated by the courts ?
  2. Who is Sally Squires, and how is she scientifically qualified to make those assertions ? Who are "Foods for the Future", the organization cited as the source of her information ?
  3. We could keep it going just for the purpose of watching LML and Spencer fight, though. Even if that's meant to be funny (which it isn't) I find the thought a sad reflection on eGullet.
  4. Well I would try a continuous stream of large coffee gelatos, on the same principle as getting people back in the saddle when they fall off a horse ... but wish him better anyway
  5. Is that you who is saying so, Ginger, or is it the chef who told you ? I had poached duck at Blue Hill a while back and it was the "normal" temperature for a hot dish. If you say it's not supposed to be hot, then what temperature is it designed to be served at ? Warm, tepid, cool, cold ? My view of this is just that if you're right (which has not yet been established) then they should say something to that effect on the menu. There is no "tradition" I know of that says poached dishes are served anything but hot. So what would be the purpose of surprizing diners with a dish presented in a way they might dislike ?
  6. Dined at Margot's last Saturday, but I forgot to go to the loo !!!!! It was a warm evening, and the door to the kitchen was open. Allegedly, this was to assist in air movement and keeping the kitchen cool, but it soon became clear that the real reason was so that all the punters could get a glimpse of the new range. David (Basil's chef) looked unusually smart as he moved from pose to pose beside the new range and he was clearly aware of the need not to obscure the customers' view for too long. Basil himself, a student of the flowing gesture, always seemed to finish each sentence with his hand pointing generally towards the new range, although of course that may have been mere coincidence. In recent reviews here, I seem to have commented frequently on the tendency of chefs to create a sauce which overpowers the central ingredient of a dish rather than complementing it. At Margot's I was reminded of the fact that balance is achievable. Rack of lamb, excellent quality meat and perfectly cooked, with a truly complementary jus was what I got here, a balanced dish in which it was possible to savour the meat itself, the sauce, the vegetables, and to appreciate the skill of the chef at the same time. The "stacked potatoes" were maybe a little too rich for my taste (very very good, but too much for me to finish) but the vegetables were perfect (cauliflower, runner beans, swede and carrot steamed al dente and served beautifully in a bamboo steamer). My starter had been an excellent (although oversized) special request dish of roasted vegetables. These included (unusually) a fabulous beetroot, not at all vinegary, with a light and subtle taste. Then the main, which I could not help but compare to the main I had at Petrus a couple of weeks ago. This one at Margot's was simply immensely better in all respects. Dessert was the famous (well, famous with Mrs Macro at least) poached pears in saffron, which now came with jelly and sorbet. The jelly was a great addition to a superb dish, but I thought the very cold sorbet detracted from the subtle flavours of the pears and jelly. I sampled a glass of Spanish Sauvignon-like white, and then a South African red. The latter was described on the wine list as "youthful and jammy" and I wouldn't want to argue with that although I have no idea whatsoever what that might mean Margot's really does have a wonderfully relaxed atmosphere, and eating there is quite simply a great pleasure. The bill for two with wine and coffee came to about £58, and I would struggle to think of anywhere I could enjoy such classy food at a price close to that.
  7. Just returned from another great stay in Padstow, and I want to update my comments on the Metropole Hotel. Yep, having vowed in my last post never to stay there again, I proved that a little customer service can go down well with the most hardened of eGulletarian cynics After my comments last year I got a PM from the manager of The Metropole, Andrew Jenkins, apologising for the problems we'd had, chiding me gently for not complaining at the time, and emphasising that he was confident in his hotel's ability to do better next time. And indeed they did ! This time we had what I think must be the best room in the hotel, a Superior room with a four-poster bed, on the corner of the hotel with fabulous views across the town and the river estuary. We were welcomed with a bottle of local Camel sparkling wine in an ice bucket Even at the full room rate without the eGullet discount, this would have been excellent value for money. Don't tell anyone who told you, but if you book at The Metropole, ask for Room 26 The staff throughout the hotel were as charming and smiling and helpful as before, but of course my eagle eye was particularly active at our first breakfast. I ordered poached egg on toast. It was perfect. The eggs (and the milk) seemed much more flavourful than those I get at home, and I don't know whether they use local farms, or my imagination was working overtime Anyway, everything about my dish was perfect, and two of the waitstaff asked me if everything was OK. Day two, I went for the jugular with a request for a kipper And it passed the test, although I have to say that I think a hotel of this class should be serving "fresh" kippers, not frozen fillets. Of course I understand the demand is probably not high enough, but I guess the cost of buying in half a dozen fresh kippers each day wouldn't break the bank. Same goes, incidentally, for the fruit juices which were not fresh squeezed Anyway, as an example of its genre, the kipper was fine. And again, our server asked if it was OK. Day three went just as well. Overall, I had the impression that there were more serving staff in the restaurant, and maybe just maybe they had been trained to ask that important "Is everything OK?" question. For my choice, I would upgrade the breakfast at The Metropole because it would better match the general quality of the hotel, and because for some reason a holiday breakfast acquires an undue level of importance in the mind of guests. I would put fresh kippers and haddocks on the menu, fresh squeezed juices, larger variety of bread and rolls, and better quality jams. And I'd add a few pounds to the price. But my thumbs have turned decisively up for The Metropole. It just goes to show how a small one-off problem in a service establishment can lose a customer, and how easy it is to regain that customer with a gesture of service. That's one of the burdens for hotels or restaurants, and the higher up the quality scale they purport to operate, the harder they have to strive to keep their customers. And I always like a happy ending
  8. I'm a big fan of St John, but I can absolutely hear the ring of truth in what you've said, Scott. The service has always been a big part of the St John experience for me, and on my four visits the service has been excellent. That does make a difference. As far as the food goes, I think many of your criticisms derive directly from the bad service, and consequent bad vibes, you got there. Copmplaints about the glassware ? Well I've never noticed the glasses, so I'll just believe what you say; but that's not a show-stopper. ...and nothing wrong with that. Many dishes are worth trying for curiosity value only; that's how we discover new dishes. Then of course you should have gone to a Greek restaurant In fairness, I think StJ customers have designated this a "signature dish" and not Fergus. I agree with you. I tried it once and it was almost instantly forgotten. That just makes it "not my sort of dish" rather than something Fergus should remove from the menu. I don't know the technical answer to that, but you are now maligning one of my favourite dishes at St John, "dahling" or not It's good to get a counterbalancing view from someone who has resisted the hype, Scott. Thanks for the review .... I enjoyed it
  9. macrosan

    Blue Smoke

    They have two excellent TVs at the bar !!!! They're quite comfortable to watch, they're big, and they have good quality pictures. You may have to fight with the noisy crowd who want to watch something else (especially basketball !!!) but my suggestion is that when you arrive you tell the bartender you want to watch the golf, and hint at a big tip
  10. Now this is exactly the kind of disgusting post that should be banned at eGullet I won't be able to eat anything for five days after reading that !!!! Actually, beetroot, fried egg and pineapple might constitute an excellent emetic ... hmmm .... there could be money in this ...
  11. It's several years since I last went, but I have been to Rules half a dozen times, always ordered game and advised my guests to do the same, and I have never had a poor meal there. It's not haute cuisine, and it's not brilliant food, but it was alaways pretty good. I used to take American guests there, because it was very British food (back in the 80s) and of course because of the history. Interestingly, one of my big complaints was overcrowding of tables (unless you got one of the few booths) so Charlene's comment about spacing suggests they've removed some tables. Perhaps, as a result of a downturn in the food, they just don't need so many tables now
  12. I'm a neutral here ... I have to be, because I've never been to El Bulli. But I have been to The Fat Duck and enjoyed it, and I understand there are distinct similarities in concept. I find the recent posts here fascinating, because they present two seemingly irreconcilable positions. First, the proposition that the El Bulli experience is not a culinary experience of worth, and that perhaps Adria is taking the mickey out of his clients. This is the classic "emperor's clothes" argument, which is in some senses a self-proving argument. Second, the proposition that people who do not find that experience of worth are de facto closed of mind, or lacking in artistic appreciation. This is also a self-proving argument which has been much discussed at eGullet under many guises. Well here is an interesting challenge for both sides. Just suppose for a moment that the other side's argument might be true, how then would you then distinguish their truth from yours ? Because it seems to me that both propositions would look exactly the same. In which case, is the "truth" determinable ? Is this not just a case for "belief" ? And if so, cannot both propositions live side by side, each of equal merit ?
  13. Oh I love the sound of that Cheery Soup
  14. Now that, as we say, is an interesting question It's pretty clear in Genesis that the chicken came first, since there are clear references to the making of these birds. "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the earth" is more likely a reference to ducks than chickens, but "Be fruitful and multiply ... and let fowl multiply in the earth" made clear the Maker's determination to provide sufficient chickens to maintain supplies of chicken soup for future generations of grandmothers. Most importantly, Genesis makes not a single mention of eggs, even upon the closest reading of the original Aramaic. So we have to conclude that the chicken did indeed come first, and it seems to me that was a sensible arrangement. For example, if the egg had come first, who would have hatched it ? And surely Adam, given half a chance, would have turned all available eggs into omelettes for breakfast, whereas he probably couldn't run fast enough to catch a chicken. In any case, unless you had seen a nice photograph of a roast chicken breast with garlic and rosemary and saute potatoes in a recipe book, do you honestly think you'd look at a strange creature with scraggy feathers, a beak, and bits of pink skin hanging from it's head, and think "Oh goody, lunch !" ???? Of course, the early chickens weren't Jewish, indeed they weren't even kosher, since neither Jews nor Kashrut had been invented yet. We will need to read later chapters to discover exactly what the details of the Covenant with Abraham contained, and no doubt we will then discover not only who begat whom, but also who became the mother of all Jewish chickens. Here endeth the first lesson
  15. Edited to try to make it look like a quote.But this entirely avoids the issue. Of course, since a vulture is a non-kosher bird, it's eggs are non-kosher. I don't need a team of learned rabbis to tell me that A chicken is a kosher bird, and so its eggs are de principio kosher. And of course if there are blood-spots, or if someone injected the egg with lard, the egg would no longer be kosher. And of course anything made from an egg must ber supervised to ensure observance of the laws of kashrut. "What makes a whole chicken egg kosher or otherwise ?" is my question. I think I'll visit the OU site and send them an email
  16. Hi Simon How close is a dish you cook in competition to the dishes you prepare at work ? Obviously there is great intensity of effort in competition, but I'm interested in whether you can put the same care and attention to detail in your day-to-day work as you would in a competition. And in fact, am I right that the intensity of competition is greater than in a hotel restaurant ?
  17. OK Bux, you win my much coveted Quote of the Week Award" with that one The prize this week is two tickets to the UK Glenfiddich Awards on 19th June 2003. They're in the mail.
  18. Now you got me I have never in my life heard of eggs being certifiable as kosher. Free range or organic have nothing to do with kashrut. What an animal eats is only relevant insofar as carrion eaters are de facto non-kosher animals, and carnivores are indirectly non-kosher animals by virtue of the cloven hoof/cud-chewing rule. My understanding has been that those regulations apply only to the animal in its natural condition. So a chicken is, by nature, a kosher animal. I don't understand how, if a chicken happens to eat meat (whether through artificial feed or accidentally in a free state), it might thereby become non-kosher. Indeed I am not aware of how a kashrut authority would ever know if a chicken had eaten meat, and in that case they would never be able to certify a chicken as kosher. And to extend that to an egg laid by a chicken which may have eaten meat seems extraordinary to me. Anyone know more about this ?
  19. Oh yes, I'm always willing to try and discuss these topics again I think a relative assessment of good urchin against bad urchin has nothing to do with sophistication of taste; that has to do with refinement of taste. Surely sophistication is determined by a willingness to experiment with unfamiliar foods and flavors, and an unwillingness to conform to commonly accepted ideas of what food is good or interesting, or even edible. Anyone who agrees with all the expert opinion on wine is not being sophisticated, he/she is simply conforming. A sophisticate would drink the wine that the expert community has not yet even considered tasting, and formulate an independent view of whether or not the wine was good. In this model, the sophisticate actually leads expert opinion.
  20. This argument is usually made, first, by people who don't really understand how the peer review process and, second, by people who have a naive view of science as something done by unsung geniuses in their garages. Well you got me on the first count, Matthew Guilty as charged. But not the second. My criticism about scientists derives from my perception that they exalt themselves above ordinary lay folk, and that they often refuse to accept the criticism of people who "don't understand the science". I;'m also not a great fan of the principle that discovery is of itself a "fine and honorable thing". I read of scientists who lay claim to the right to discover, without being willing to enter into the philosophical and moral argument about the possible threats that their discovery might present to society. Sure I know this is a blanket position. Sure I know there are countless scientists who do not behave as above. Some of my best friends are scientists. But those are the people I don't have to worry about, whereas the ones working for Mr Tobacco and Mr Soy and Mr GM almost certainly should be worried about.
  21. You're right from an intellectual standpoint, Pan, but that calm, rational approach just doesn't attract much attention. You are right, you are right ..... but I'm tolerant of a few more liberties being taken with absoulute honesty. Mea culpa
  22. Yeah, I guess that's not bad value Those friars can sure tuck in to a bevy or two. Just like in the days of Robin Hood. I really must get back to that place !!!!
  23. Exactly so. Peer review will almost always maintain the status quo of the scientific community, which is in many senses the most conservative of all intellectual communities. It astonishes me that they do, from time to time, permit heresy ... er, I mean groundbreaking new discovery I have always argued that common sense and practical experience have an important part to play in judgement of science. Old wives' tales are showing an increasing tendency to become scientifically supported, as in St John's Wort and Chicken Soup And when my mother says of genetic engineering of food "No good will come of it" then I'm inclined to attach credence to her instinct and experience.
  24. I understand your argument, Pan, but in what substantial way is the Planck article different from me asserting that the production of foie gras involves cruelty to animals, or that GM food manufacture is dangerous to mankind, or that alcohol is a poison ? All of those are simply assertions, and are liable to generate opposing views, and that creates the debate that eGullet is (I assume) here for. Surely your strictures on Planck could only be valid if she was purporting to deliver a scientific paper, which she clearly is not. I repeat what I said earlier, that given some of the excessive claims of the GM/soy lobby, perhaps some equivalent liberties with presentation of science on the other side are in order, to redress the balance.
  25. . If they don't look, they won't find. I'm not saying you're implied all-clear for genetic engineering is wrong, Mark. My instinct does, but I'm aware there is no proof either way. Of course your side of the argument is on safe ground, because when I ask you for proof you'll just say "You can't prove a negative". Well then, if you can't prove the negative, at least accept that it might exist, and acknowledge that in principle any human intervention with nature must carry risks. So the argument is not based on science, but on pure logic and common sense. Now if you'd like some examples from history of scientists claiming that they fully understood their science, and its social implications, was safe, followed by proof of the opposite, then we'd better set up a new thread on a different website. That is a long, long list
×
×
  • Create New...