Paul Stanley

What is the thinking behind adding the water gradually? I used to use a KA to mix, in which case I simply added all the water together and used it to knead, usually on a fairly slow speed, until I was happy. I no longer have the KA, so now I work by hand. I have had great success with Dan Lepard's method: a rough mix, wait 10 minutes, and then three 15 second (yes ... second) kneads at 10 minute intervals. The thinking is that gluten development depends as much on hydration as on mechanical manipulation, so what the dough really needs is time not action. The result is like magic, and does seem to produce a dough which is just what I would expect of kneaded dough, silky smooth and elastically resilent by the time the last knead is complete. The finished bread is as good as anything I ever made kneading with the KA. Holding back water would seem inconsistent with the theory behind this approach ... which doesn't mean it might not work! One possible advantage to the "gradual incorporation" method would be the ability to make small adjustments for consistency. My problem with that is that I don't think I bake enough to judge the adjustments accurately: I am as likely to make dough too wet by adding too much water because it "looks dry" at an early stage as I am to get it right, or too dry because it seems "too wet" when it would have been perfectly OK if it had been allowed to hydrate and rise. So now I tend to stick to the recipe quite precisely, and only adjust (next time I make a particular recipe) if the mix was significantly wrong the previous time. By sticking to the same flour, I get reasonably consistent results. Not perfect, no doubt, but then baking is all about compromise. I do however adjust rising/proofing based on how the dough is performing, and in that way one can to some extent compensate, albeit imperfectly, for small variations in dough consistency. (BTW, I can also see that there might be reasons to build a dough in a series of distinct stages with quite differenty hydrations, eg a sponge to get yeast activity going strongly, followed by a stiff dough to enable long fermentation with only limited rising, followed by a baking-thickness dough to shape and proof. I've read/baked some recipes like this. But that seems a different proposition from your method.)

As with all things, generalisation is hard. But bear in mind that French vinaigrettes tend to be rather bland and on-the-sharp-side. I think this is because the French generally serve the salad after the main course and it has a sort of "palate cleansing" function. Maybe a sharp vinaigrette on a plain salad serves that function well. That would suggest, not as an iron-clad rule, but as a general principle, that sweetness would not be desired, and quite strong acidity not despised. It also tends to favour a choice of rather bland oil, and minimal additional flavourings. American and British palates prefer much sweeter dressings, whether the sweetness comes directly in the form of sugar, or indirectly by the addition of something like honey, or balsamic vinegar -- I have even encountered jam. This is consistent with a general love of the sweet/sour combination apparent in products such as chutneys, ketchups and so on. Personally ... I generally avoid sugar, unless making a lemon-juice dressing with an excessively tart lemon, in which case I may add a pinch. But I think "heresy" is too strong a word for it: really just differences in palate.

Thank you. Always a scary moment. And I'm sure you're right: the place of coffee in a meal varies from culture to culture. I think that affects what type of coffee seems right.

I am late to this party, and a mere coffee drinker (no expert) but ... I would second the French press idea. Among other things, I don't really think of espresso as an after-dinner restaurant drink. A good espresso is a shot; it's drunk quickly, on the go. An Italian espresso is not much more than a tablespoon of liquid (the experts will know how much). It's not a drink to linger over, really just a few mouthfuls. After dinner I want something more than that. I want something that will take 10 minutes to drink. Not a milky drink, not even a mug of coffee, but a small cup of strong black coffee. French press sounds good for that. I stayed at a lovely hotel recently, and the coffee was all French press. It was really delicious. Secondly, it makes sense to have hot water available because you need to be able to offer tea or tisanes for those who don't like to drink coffee late at night. So you will need the boiler anyway. In which case it is an economical use of equipment to use French presses. But ... the one thing I would say is that although French press may be easier to make a decent cup with than an espresso machine, people do still need to take care. It's quite possible to make bad French press coffee too!