David Ross

Before I started cooking I did a comparison between pre-cleaned frozen squid from the supermarket and whole frozen squid from my fishmonger. The pre-cleaned squid was farm-raised in Vietnam. It sold for 3.99 for 12oz. I didn't get a photo of the packaging, but the tentacles were separated from the bodies and packed into a separate compartment in the box. These squid were really tiny, which I found was not as desirable as larger squid due to the shrinkage that takes place during cooking- I bought a 3lb. box of frozen whole squid from the fishmonger. It was slightly cheaper than the pre-cleaned squid from the supermarket. They're from a California company- The whole squid were about twice the size of the pre-cleaned squid, but certainly not as convenient. I've cleaned a lot of squid so I don't mind the time it takes to cut the tentacles off the head, pull the skin layer of the body, pull out the innards and then pull out the quill. If you're a novice at cleaning squid, the box has clear instructions. The uncleaned whole squid- And the cleaned squid with tentacles, and bodies cut into thick rings- Whenever I buy the pre-cleaned stuff I'm disappointed. It's puny and doesn't have much flavor. One wonders how long it's been sitting in the freezer case at Safeway. The whole squid always taste fresher, (albeit they've been frozen), and the size advantage makes a difference in the end result of my cooked dishes.

Just at the market for a few basic items and what did they have? A huge fresh octopus. I didn't buy it, but now I know there's a source close by for ordering fresh octopus. Working on my first squid dish for this evening.

For a long time I worked in Seattle but lived in Spokane. I only travel to Seattle occasionally for business, but I'm still fairly well dialed into their food scene.

I'm in Eastern, WA, in Spokane. My fishmonger has very good frozen octopus, baby octopus and two types of squid. We just don't have a large enough demographic over here that would make it worth the cost for him to carry fresh octopus. I might try having something shipped over from Seattle.

Do you always use fresh squid? The only products I have available are frozen, but they seem to work well. I'm wondering if freezing breaks down the squid, ultimately affecting the cooked flavor?

So I'm getting ready to cook a squid dish and I'm wondering about this business of "corks." Is it truly a legendary tale told by a Greek Fisherman? Do old wine corks really tenderize squid and octopus? What say you?

Working on my first dish. It's a combination of a number of recipes, including a squid dish from Mario Batali. Well, he calls it Squid in the title of the dish, "Squid from Santa Lucia's Port," (Calamari alla Luciana), yet refers to calamari in the text of the recipe. I'm hoping his instructions to cook the squid twice, the first time for 50 minutes and the second cooking for 30 minutes, won't overcook the buggars to the texture of shoe leather.

Thanks for the link. Ironically, like the BBC recipe I'm going to be using squid and cannelini beans in one of my dishes. And I love the combination of smoky chorizo and seafood. Luckily, I have some dried Spanish chorizo in my fridge so I think I might work that into my dish.

Ah. So you're going to show us a delicious Cuttlefish dish!

You are correct that in America we often use calamari and squid as interchangeable words to describe the same thing. I see it as the same discussion we find with the terms shrimp, prawns and tiger prawns. The same item yet with a loose definition for most consumers. Menus at mid-level restaurants and bars tend to use the term calamari since that's more familiar and appealing to a mass-customer base. And yes, it's synonymous with the deep-fried stuff. We're talking frozen calamari, (a.k.a. squid), rings that are pre-cooked, breaded, frozen and packed into 5lb. bags, shipped to a food service company and then on to an individual restaurant. I've been to places where they don't include the tentacles and simply serve the rings. Again, an attempt I suppose to appeal to customers who just like deep-fried, crunchy food they can dip into bottled marinar or tartar sauce. (Personally, I prefer the tentacles). On the other hand, when I dine at an upscale Italian restaurant the Chef always uses the term squid on his menu. He's from Northern Italy and stays true to not only his cooking but authentic descriptions on his menu. Regardless of how he prepares it, it's "squid." I've gone through a large number of my Chinese cookbooks and they all use the term "squid," whether it be deep-fried, braised or stir-fried. In the opening paragraph, unintentionally, I used the terms interchangeably, so I'm glad you brought the question forward. Great starting point for our discussion and cook-off.

Welcome to the 2013 kick-off of our popular eG Cook-Off Series. In 2012, our Cook-Offs ran the gamut from “Hash,” to “Cured, Brined, Smoked and Salted Fish,” onto “Banh Mi” and ending the 2012 season with a discussion of “Gels, Jell-O, Aspic.” (Click here http://forums.egullet.org/topic/143994-egullet-recipe-cook-off-index/ for the complet eG Cook-Off Index). I made a personal discovery during our “Gels, Jell-O, Aspic” Cook-off. I found a little metal Jell-O mold on a dark, back shelf in a kitchen cupboard. That little mold led to a cherished family memory and became the vessel that would hold one of the most delicious dishes I’ve ever crafted. (Click here http://forums.egullet.org/topic/143597-cook-off-61-gels-jell-o-and-aspic/ to read about the delicious jiggly dishes we created). Today we’re going to venture into the depths of a discussion about a sea-dweller that is so scary looking to some they refuse to eat the delicious little devils. The horrors of being presented with a steaming bowl of soup with little appendages peeking out. Join in and let’s put forth our very best “Squid, Calamari and Octopus” dishes. Knowing your passion for cuisine, I don’t expect to see squid rings coated in gummy batter and deep-fried to the point that they bounce on the floor like a rubber ball. No, I’m guessing we’ll plate some fabulous dishes that showcase the versatility of these unique creatures.

After watching the finale for a third time I have an even greater appreciation for Kristen and her talents and style of cuisine. I can't wait to try that snapper dish in my own kitchen.

I'm sure well start a new topic about this season's Top Chef Masters once it airs. In the end, I think this was probably my favorite season of Top Chef.

I don't think I'd be interested in a Top Chef Winners series, but after this season, Kristen solidified my Top Chef dream team; Harold, Hung, Paul and Kristen.

I wasn't overly impressed by the gushing at the table of former Top Chef winners and I'd agree that some displayed larger egos than others. I could care less if you cook for the King of Siam. Resumes don't impress me as much as tasting your food. Yet I was pleased that Padma did mini bios of the winners and we could see their success and the inspiration that Top Chef has given young Chefs coming up through the ranks. I think Kristen's final dish appeared to have more focus and purity of flavor than Brooke's. And I would probably agree with Gail on the cut of the leeks in Kristen's dish--if they are cut too long they get stringy. As we progressed through the season I kept thinking Brooke was heading to a direction that could prove her undoing. Dishes that are overly descriptive on a written menu but entice the diner. Yet when you taste the elements on the plate they compete with one another and are over-worked. Pomegranate seeds are the popular garnish of the day, let's pair pork cheef with red snapper, how about a sorrel sauce, on and on and on. Not having tasted either Chefs food, my constructive criticism for both is to work on the details and putting more focus on each element of a dish.

I went into the finale with a pre-conceived notion that I wasn't going to like the format. But I often surprise myself and I actually liked the format of the Chefs cooking in a more challenging situation than previous finales when the Chefs knew ahead of time that they'd be cooking a full menu in their culinary style. I sort of see it as the challenge of working in a kitchen preparing tasting menus on the fly. And Kristen really redeemed her poor leadership skills in restaurant wars by coming back and strongly yet confidently leading her team.

Kristen has a very long future as a Top Chef.

And I'm not being overly dramatic when I simply say again that it's so refreshing that the final four Chefs showed that they do like and respect one another. The previews make the finale look sort of like a live "Kitchen Stadium" type of cook-off. Based on what I've seen I'm not overly excited about that format, but we'll see.

Really, arguing about the minutiae behind the precise placement of a pink peppercorn isn't the point. In the end, what matters at the Judges table is not so much definitions but outstanding food. It's really that simple. Sheldon was already hanging by a thread and his earlier mistakes caught up with him in the first-round of the finale. Brooke and Kristen weren't fabulous, but they were better than Sheldon.

Agreed, and quite refreshing.

I've never hidden the fact that I'm rooting for Kristen to win the title, and I do agree she cooks in a French-style, but certainly has much more range and depth. I thought her take on a classic chicken pot pie was genius-substituting the traditional cream sauce with a sauce made of silken tofu. My one criticism of Kristen is that she was going too far in the earlier episodes in terms of creativity--too many garnishes, too many elements, one too many sauces on the plate. Now she has to just find that precise line and not cross it--the exact balance between creativity and simplicity. That's my failing mark against a lot of Chefs today--and not many ever achieve that perfect balance. I can understand how people may get confused by the Judges comments in terms of pushing a Chef to break out of their standard, but then criticize them for abandoning their "style." Sheldon was a perfect example. It seems that his perception of their criticism, (and Brooke's snarky comments), was that he should try and venture out of his comfort zone. That's not how I see it or viewed it. Sheldon was very good at seafood and soups, (albeit the salty broth last week notwithstanding). I say stay with what you know Sheldon, do dishes that speak to who you are.....but.....find that small little technique, that creative flair, that ingredient, (which might not be "Asian"), that brings your dish up to "Top Chef" level. That's my recommedation. Stay true to who you are, (i.e. French or Asian), but find your inner voice that gives your cooking soul, regardless of what someone else tells you that you must do. I offer a perfect example of what I'm talking about, (but of course, I'm not a Judge on Top Chef). People think of Joel Robuchon as a Master of French cuisine. That he is. But if you taste his food, you'll see that he tests the boundaries of what the old-guard would call French cuisine. It's an example any young Chef could learn from. The current 16-course "Menu Degustation" at Robuchon at the MGM Grand runs $435 per person, wines, cocktails and service not included. The caviar course probably surprises diners with Asian ingredients found in a dish at a haute French restaurant: Le Caviar- Red turnip and carrot leaves with yellowtail carpaccio, delicate veloute of corn, salmon tartar with shiso sprouts Robuchon uses lots of Asian and North African ingredients, but he's a French Chef.

It comes up every season of Top Chef-how can a Chef that's so talented be cut for cooking one bad dish? Until this year, I always struggled with aspect of the judging on Top Chef, thinking that there should be some sort of point system or progressive scoring so that the Chefs with more wins built up a sort of ongoing immunity. Well that's not really fair, and when you think about it, a "Top Chef" should be sent home for one bad dish. Does that mean that the weaker Chefs can win? Probably not. The weak contestants are cut early on, the marginal ones get further, the good Chefs endure, but in the end, typically the best Chefs get to the final show. Sheldon's a good example. As I said earlier, the errors were building and would ultimately do him in--two failed attempts at tempura, (when he knew he failed after the first try), and a weak effort in the Surf and Turf challenge. So while it's good discussion to contemplate a "set-up" to have two women compete for the title of Top Chef, really it was just a matter of who cooked the best dishes. The other stuff just falls out of that. There's something about Brooke I just don't particularly like. Something off in her personality, but that's a bit rude of me since I don't know her. I'm overly biased toward Kristin, and I can't wait to see what her final menu will look like.

My employee who is the avid goose hunter brough me some Canadian Goose thighs and legs. I'm going to make some confit for him. he had a taste of my duck confit in December, and I think I've got him hooked. Hopefully wild goose will make a decent confit.

And while I'm anxious about next season's location, and hopefully somewhere in the South, we stil have this season to finish first. My money is on Kristin to win last chance kitchen and then, in a very close battle with Brooke, (sorry Sheldon), Kristin takes the title of Top Chef.

I don't actually have a problem with the negotiations that take place between Bravo and prospective cities for Top Chef. In my mind, it's great PR for a city and local businesses to be showcased on Top Chef, and yes, there is a price to pay for that exposure. But the constant shots this season of the Space Needle and the Pike Place Market sign are priceless in my opinion. I would venture to say that many viewers are booking trips to Seattle and Alaska just based on what they've seen on Top Chef. I'm pretty sure the Seattle business and tourism community would say that while they can't factually chart it on a graph, the exposure on Top Chef, (and what they paid for it), is going to be worth the expense. I'm also intrigued by what sort of arrangements are made behind the scenes for Tom and Padma's accomodation. I wonder what sort of hotel comps are paid to Bravo. I would guess that Padma probably was in either an exquisite hotel suite and one of Seattle's finest properties or in a penthouse condo above where the contestants were staying. It would be interesting to know. And I also wonder about that beautiful waterfront property where they shot the infamous "fried chicken" challenge. What a view. Quintessestial Seattle at that place.