britcook

Mmm, Felton Road Pinot Noir. Only $39.99/bottle, ideal for everyday! Not.

No they have to taste as if they have been made by hand. Britcook wants them to actually be made by hand. I find that an unneccessary distinction. We gave two examples of things that are mass produced on a small scale which people consider artisanal, Pain Poillane and Le Pain Quotidian. In fact Pain Poillane is considered by most people as the height of artisanality. But Britcook might want to deny them that designation as a matter of semantics. Yet there are bakers all over France these days who have hung a "Fabrique Artisanale" sign outside of their shops who make complete merde who he would be happy giving that designation to. If anyone wants to know why they traditionally eat well in France, and not in the U.K., just follow the argument in this thread. The French (like the Americans) are happy to throw a phrase like "artisanal" into the marketplace and allow it to become a marketing phrase and then let consumers actually decide what tastes artisanal and what doesn't. In fact I am certain if it became an issue with a certain artisan who modernized their facility to the extent that it became questionable whether he met the technical definition, they would send one of those administrative groups in to taste his product and to see if it exhibited the qualities and characteristics of an artisanal product. The Brits on the other hand are more obssessed with the proper use of the english language then they are with food tasting good and they would clearly deny the use of the phrase artisanal based on the type of strict definition that Britcook would enforce. This is why the French have employed, and I must add, enjoyed the fruits of on their dinner tables, the use of the word terroir. And it is why english speakers the world over are eating things like spam and pop tarts while they are scratching their heads trying to figure out the exact definition of the term. I want Pop Tarts to be made by hand? Get outtahere. Pain Poilane (are you EVER going to spell that correctly) is artisanal, never tried to argue that. More obsessed with the use of English than food tasting good? Enforcing strict definitions? You're having a laugh I want to know the provenance of my food and I want it to taste good. What is more I want to be able to share that experience by cooking for friends, dining with friends, eating at decent restaurants and discussing the results of all three. I want those discussions to be amiable, enlightening and stimulating and to achieve that all participants need to have a common frame of reference and a mutually understood language. Now if you want to go stretching words beyond their commonly accepted meaning because you want to coin some neologism to assist your marketing efforts then so be it, but you and your ilk will debase the language in the process and ultimately make communication more difficult. Once upon a time I could order a Caesar Salad and know pretty much what I was going to get. Nowadays if I order it God alone knows what is going to appear on the plate. The once commonly accepted phrase for this simple salad has been debased, subverted and hijacked to the point where it is now meaningless. A Caesar Salad is no longer Mr Cardini's invention it's whatever the chef decides it should be. I want my food to taste good, to reflect the quality of its ingredients and the care taken in its preparation guided by the skill and imagination of the cook. I don't want it to taste industrial, artisanal, home-made, production-line or crap. I want it to taste right. Terroir puts it in its place. Artisanal describes its method of production. Both will affect the finished product which will, with luck, be better for both. But neither will describe its taste, unless you want it to taste of soil and sweaty hands. The general view here seems to be that the real debate is about how much mechanisation should be allowed in the definition of artisanal, you seem obsessed with trying to redefine the word entirely. So tell us Steve, exactly what does artisanal taste like?

I think your use in this context was spot on, it meets my definition of made directly or under the close control of a skilled worker or craftsman. An artisan will use the best tools available to produce the desired result, and if these are high-tech then so be it, you don't chop down a tree with a paring knife if you have a chainsaw available. And the end result, in this case the chocolate, tastes sublime - not as Steve "lost the Plot" nicki keeps trying to insist, "artisanal".

I'm beginning to bore myself now. Artisanal is not a description of quality but of method, much the same as 'home-made'. The generally accepted meaning of the latter soubriquet, at least in food terms, is that the result is potentially better than something produced by an industrial process, but on the other hand I've had some dire home-made food and some pretty good industrial stuff. So to present artisanal as an absolute term for high quality or good taste is, at least to me, a nonsense. To say that I insist "that things not made by hand will not taste artisanal" misconstrues the argument, what I am saying that food can be good, bad or indifferent whether home-made, artisanal or industrial and what matters is that we do not confuse the result with the process.

Ye gods, how many times can you go past the point and still miss it. Something can't taste "as if it was made artisanally". It can be well made and so taste good, but it could also be well made and "taste like crap". The method of production DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT CAUSAL EFFECT ON THE TASTE. An artisan (I think we have all agreed) is a craftsman, a skilled worker. If he is good at his craft then one would normally expect his output to be a good example of whatever it is he produces whether it be furniture, pottery or cheese. If he is a successful artisan then you can assume that what he produces matches the taste of at least some people, which is because he takes care in the selection of his raw materials and then fashions them properly in response to market demands. So far so good but you can also get an industrial process which takes average materials and then applies science and/or technology to obtain a product which looks/feels/tastes good, maybe even better than the "artisan" product. Can you taste an industrial product? How do you know? Can you believe it's not butter?

If you don't have a common vocubulary then you can't discuss the way food tastes, or hasn't that sunk in? Pain Poilane may or may not be made in an artisanal manner but the end result is that it tastes good/fresh/yeasty/home-made/delicious or whatever adjective you choose. No we're not, and your attempts to subvert the language will not help.

I first came across this many years ago from a French source where a dish was described as "artisanale", which in the context would fit well, so it may be a fairly straight lift. Back to the point. Insofar as there is an adjectival use of the word artisan (and this sort of use is increasingly acceptable) then it has to mean "in the manner or style of an artisan". Now the definition of artisan infers the use of skill so something produced artisanally (cunning slide into adverbial usage) would imply that the end product was of at least reasonable quality. But in the matter of food it can ONLY apply to the process and not the taste (implied good). All this means is that the foods presented were prepared by artisans, i.e. craftsmen. Period. Of course if you want to wilfully change a word's meaning then feel free to continue an ancient tradition, but then we may get to the Looking Glass point where you have no idea what anybody is talking about because they all use words differently.

Isn't that the only kind? Or do they come in attractive too?

Other than the "finely crafted" part of your definition it does appear that you are stretching the use of the word to cover taste or quality, neither of which are explicit in any correct definition of the word. For instance Penfolds is Australia's largest winemaker, and makes extensive use of all the modern techniques on a mass production basis, nevertheless much of their output is significantly better in terms of taste (and value) than many of the boutique or artisanal wines from small producers. Artisanal relates to the means or style of production NOT the end result.

Let's start in pedagogue mode, which may, or may not, continue. An artisin is something perpetretated by modern "conceptual" artists like Tracey Emin on a gullible liberal intelligentsia. An artisan is a skilled craftsman or woman who produces work which requires manual dexterity but also has some connotations with the use of mechanical devices. So a potter who uses uses a computer controlled wheel and a nuclear oven is no less an artisan than one who uses a treadle driven wheel and a clay oven. The artisan part comes in mastery of the tools, so modern techniques and devices do not necessarily negate the skill or craft of the artisan. So to the word artisanal which in its broadest sense can be stated as made by, or in the manner of, an artisan which in turn implies that some degree of skill or craft has been exercised by the producer(s) obtaining the end product. The real question is in how much automation is allowed in the process before it becomes purely mechanical, thus removing the element of individual or group skill. In a simple illustration if an artist takes a mass-produced vase and then decorates it entirely by hand is it an artisanal product? Or if the same vase is cast by hand and then mechanically sprayed or coloured on a production line is it still artisanal? With bread, like the Poilane loaf, which can be made with as much or as little automation as you wish, where is the dividing line. Some might posit that all processes have to be done by hand, which is wrong because then it would be hand-made but not necessarily artisanal because it lacks the mechanical assistance inferred in the preceding definition. Others might say it can all be automated as long as at each critical stage it is assessed and corrected as necessary by a skilled person, but even this has inherent difficulties because does the skill come from experience, training and knowledge or does it come from the ability to handle analytical and measurement tools and refer the results to some pre-determined courses of action. So where does this get us, other than in a lexical tangle? I think for most people the word artisanal means that the product has been produced either directly by, or under the close control of, a skilled person but the boundaries will always be subjective. Incidentally I don't think there is a direct causal link between artisanal and good quality, indeed some prize artisanal goods for the slight imperfections they contain on the basis that it shows human intervention. As for good, or better, taste, that is such a subjective area that I'm not even going to start down that road. Having arrived at a definition that suits me (and feel free to differ) what the rest of the world does with it takes us straight Through the Looking Glass:

You say this as if there is something wrong with it S It may have escaped your attention but the vast majority of the British population doesn't live in London, and some of them would like somewhere decent to eat. Mind you there is a problem with the provinces, at one of our better local restaurants the owner said he could survive quite well by only opening two days a week, unfortunately they would both have to be Saturday. I think that's the difference between London (and other major cities) and the provinces, in the big cities people are dining out every night but out in the sticks it tends to be weekends only.

So why is it that when you buy this bottle personally at the winery in Napa it still costs $24?

1. In what form, raw, canned, processed? How big is a case? 2. How generous are you? Is it for canapes/nibbles, starters/appetizers, main course/entree?

Errr, not quite. Chicken Cacciatore is hunter's chicken. Chicken Marengo was supposedly put together by Napoleon's chef on the battlefield and named after Napoleon's horse Marengo.

Christmas pudding in a glass! You can buy half bottles at Tesco for under a tenner.

What you know about cooking is irrelevant because you know plenty about eating which is the key factor. You have my sympathy, but nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the public, that's why fast food places are all over the planet like a rash while places serving decent food close weekly. Go for easy, go for simple, maintain your standards in the quality of the ingredients. One of the (many) reasons I never opened a restaurant is that "casting pearls before swine" - feeding decent food to people who don't appreciate it - would upset me too much.

Well I had two boiled eggs yesterday that were two weeks past "best by" date and I'm still here to post about it. That has also been my experience in the past although I wouldn't like to bake with older eggs, they don't seem to work as well. When an egg is off you can smell it as soon as you crack the shell, it's not for nothing that hydrogen sulphide gas is said to smell of bad eggs. With most "best by" dates the manufacturers/suppliers give themselves a fairly wide margin for error and assume that the product will last at least to that date in eatable form even if it has been distributed and stored in poor conditions. If you have bought from a reputable supplier and kept the produce/product under the proper conditions you nearly always have at least a few days leeway, except for very short dated products that need to be eaten within a day or two. In today's litigious climate suppliers cannot take the risk of being sued for supplying "bad" food.

And of course oven location - separate tray, in the roast tin round the meat, in a tray under a rack with the meat on. How often do you agitate (or don't you). What about flouring before putting in the oven. Potato choice is crucial, we use King Edwards but other people may have different choices. Oven temperature? Dark art indeed.

Elsewhere in deepest darkest Kent we think that butter has to come in there somewhere. I'd love to come and be a spectator but will be away trying the delights of American cuisine.

I used Madeira as an example because it's oxidized during the process of making it, therefore it will take longer for it to succumb to excess oxidization. I've one or two odd spirits, mixers admittedly, in opened bottles that have sat around the back of the cocktail cabinet for several years but don't seem to have got appreciably worse. I suppose I'm not familiar enough with their taste to decide how good they are, and I suppose if I compared them to a freshly opened bottle they would not show well, but they seem to work well enough in cocktails.

Buying wine which will only be fit for consumption at some unspecified date in the future (but probably 15 - 20 years) is a bit like buying property "off-plan". Maybe it will get completed, maybe it will be watertight, maybe it will be as drawn. And maybe it won't. But by the time you find out with either wine or property it will be too late. It may also exceed your expectations but in this bean-counter driven world that becomes increasingly unlikely. Assuming you are prepared to do a little groundwork (or already have the knowledge) there is a whole raft of excellent wine out there for under £20 ($30) a bottle which will be ready to drink within a few years. Now your mature claret may be "better" than this, subject to personal tastes, but 3,4,5 times better? And can you catch this claret at its peak - whenever you drink it some will say too early, others too late. Ultimately wine is a very subjective thing, probably more so than food, so famous palates or no, if a particular "expert" opinion does not coincide with yours then you're in trouble. Remember back in the early 80's all those people pushing the wine had a commercial interest in talking it up, knowing full well that by the time you came to discover whether they were right or not it would be too late to do anything about it. So are we being conned? While I think that most of the people involved probably have decent motives, ultimately the effect is that we are conned.

Absolutely the point, and there are still a few "traditionalists" around who still don't quite get it. "How my father made it" is no longer a good enough standard. Couple with this you have the invasion of the corporates (see the thread on Gruaud) who try and stretch a vineyard beyond its natural capacity to produce a top wine and you can see where it's going. And I don't subscribe to Plotnicki's rules on Bordeaux (sensible though they are). Life is too short to store Bordeaux. If it's not drinkable within a decade of purchase then I can buy lots of good stuff that is.

Absolutely nothing. And your experience is unlikely to have been improved by including first growths. These wines are sold on price, not on taste and the Parkerisation of clarets has not helped. People who see these as status symbols buy them because they can afford it, and they know less about wine than the average kindergarten class. So the producers can produce mediocre wines and nobody cares. Those of us with an interest and limited wallets look elsewhere. Not to say there aren't still some fine clarets around, but even then the value for money is ridiculously low.

Never said there was, just that it's mostly a North American only taste. One or two Europeans like it but they're few and far between.

They would be correct. Talent is never cheap.