Wilfrid

I know, Simon. I started off as a costermonger, then came over all Piccadilly Circus-like. I maybe turning into Hugh Paddick.

That Plotnicki geezer is a right 'erbert who thinks he's all about trout, but don't know nisht. He's got some bee in his titfer about our grub, but he wouldn't know apples and pears from porky pies. All he does is lay about some smart frog gaff all day, sucking up the sauce, hoping for a charver from some fancy bona paloma, then he comes down here like lord of the manor, effing and blinding like a good un, and sticking his fizz into where it's not wanted. I bet he wears brown boots too, I asks you. And lamp the capella on that Fat Bloke.

Adam, I would vote for an English republic given the chance (ah, sedition). tutti frutti, I certainly don't find Steve P. boring, and I've no reason to believe he's old (older than me, anyway)...

There should be a bar in the farmer's market. All problems solved.

Steve Plotnicki's arguments.

Hello, now we've got someone who thinks the beer's shit. What's your pleasure, tutti frutti, a can of Rheingold? In fact, I can feel an "American beer is shit" thread coming on. But not today.

By the way, let me refresh myself by saying I agree with Steve Plotnicki. The pie discussion, which is interesting and deserves a different thread, has nothing to do with his valid question about the influence of British gastronomy on restaurant culture outside Britain. I think we got sidetracked when Plotnicki took a list of snacks which Tony Finch recommended as good with beer as being at the heart of British dining. I admit I may have raised the game pie in another context too, but heaven knows where. However, as I said above, I think Plotnicki's question was answered already. Incidentally, time for a reality check. I am not surprised French, Italian, Chinese, etc restaurants outnumber British, regardless of the immigration and other issues. Let me hammer away at deaf ears: a lot of British food is not that great; it certainly falls way behind French cuisine, and a lot of other cuisines too. I have said this all along. It is trying to catch up. But as I also said, about a million years ago, it wouldn't be so far behind if not for the wars of the last century, and it is not (even if the judgment of a non-game eating, non-pastry eating fine bec is the summit of gastronomic opinion) all "shit".

There's the prejudice, you see, right there, and I think this is what is irritating some of us British, who have conceded throughout that French food is much better at all levels. I am sure that Taillevent make a tasty game pie. But what is the basis for the assumption that it would be better than anything a British chef can make? I recall eating Richard Neat's snail pie (at Pied a Terre a few years back, and I'm sure it was called something fancier), and I've also eaten hare cooked by him more than once. I think he could make quite a decent game pie indeed. But the main point is - why assume he can't, just because he's British? Why assume that Fergus Henderson, Richard Howard, Gary Rhodes (and so on) can't make a game pie up to a "Taillevent" standard? It's the grip of the old myths, you see. It's the old myths which have Plotnicki fixated on the idea that British cooks (in restaurants or at home) are making doughy pastry and thick floury sauces, using unstrained broth and scraps of meat. Well, I don't, and no-one I know (who can cook) does. And you won't find that kind of cooking in decent British restaurants any more. It's a picture which was valid, as an "across the board" take on British gastronomy, maybe twenty years ago. Not now. I really thought people on this Board would be better informed. By the way, Mr P asks if we can get back to his original question about why there aren't many British restaurants outside Britain. I thought we'd answered that pretty thoroughly. There are some. Their aren't many, mainly because of lack of mass British emigration. Emigration has carried most cuisines around the world, with the exception of French cuisine which has travelled for different reasons and is sui generis. However, there's a lot more "British" restaurant cooking than there appears to be because, as Steven Shaw and I (and probably others) have pointed out, many dishes you find on menus in restaurants which do not "theme" themselves as British are actually typical british dishes.

Lunch at Peter Luger didn't do much for Plotnicki's temper, did it? This was the day he came back yelling "horsehit" and "whack". :wow:

Does anyone think that New York Irish pubs - and I don't deny that many of them are run and staffed by the Irish - are much like pubs in Ireland? Some try hard - Molly's Shebeen at 22nd and 3rd, for example - but in general they're nothing much like the bars I remember, especially outside Dublin. One random particular: bars in Ireland tend to be well lit. Spot quiz: There used to be a horrible dive at 23rd and 3rd called Glocca Morra. Bejasus, not a real Irish name at all - anyone know the derivation (if not I'll tell you)?

A bit puzzled. Obviously the English continue to use pastry when making pies, tarts, pasties and so on. The French continue to use pastry when making that kind of stuff - I had a very appealing tourte de volaille - a pie indeed - from the market in Lille a few months ago. They offered hare pie as well, but I had already bought a huge slice of hare terrine. The French still encrust fruit don't they. And then there are quiches and vol-au-vents. And I assume you are counting out sweet dishes, because patisseries seem to be goingn quite strong in France still. So it doesn't seem quite so cut and dried. The English don't use pastry when making terrines or pates in the modern day sense. Nor did they use pastry when making the English equivalents of ballotines or galantines. So both coutnries have a tradition of some dishes with pastry, some without. When you say "thickening", do you mean thickening sauces? English cooks use the whole range of techniques for achieving sauces of the right consistency - including the beurre manie method, which uses flour and is of course French.

Let me help. I am sure you are familiar with the historical connotation of the French term "pate"*, and that it signified a preparation - usually meat - encased in pastry. It shares the same etymological root as the English "pasty". Today, the pastry case is usually absent, but it still possible - easy, in fact - to buy the version with pastry in French traiteurs and markets. As you know, the French still make game pates, both with and without pastry casings - pieces of hare or rabbit, maybe some breast of game bird too, often bound with some forcemeat. Now, I don't know if you find French game pates, with or without pastry cases, disgusting. I would say that British game pies are essentially the same in concept. I would say you are likely to find a higher proportion of game meat to forcemeat than in a French pie. You are also more likely to find a gelatin layer, flavored with wine and/or herbs, between the meat and the pie crust. And I would hazard that the variety and quality of wild game available to an English pie-maker is superior to that available in France. I have never made or eaten a game pie made with "scraps", and it is certainly not typical to have them made with "gravy" - they are usually eaten cold, after all. I am sure poor peasants made them with scraps at some point in time, but so what? If you are passing through London, you could sample a version from Fortnum & Mason's, although I admit I have found their pastry to be a little disappointing sometimes. Home-made is better. I have tried to be polite and informative here, and not to kvetch, but feel free to call me a knucklehead again if it helps you sleep. *I'll figure out how to do accents one day.

Guffaw. In fact, they let me in but gave a me a table in the bar, even though tables in the restaurant area were free. A little above their station, I felt. And, of course, they served my food with gravy.

Far be it from me to offer a well-informed opinion, but I know a little bit about risk assessment. Consuming alcohol while pregnant increases the risk of damage to foetal health. The risk is dose-related, by which I mean that the more you swill down the greater the danger to your unborn child. The reverse applies: very moderate alcohol intake causes very little if any increase in risk to foetal health. The public health community, however, reason in the following way: complete abstinence eliminates any alcohol-related risk; alcohol consumption is absolutely unnecessary; therefore pregnant women should be advised not to drink at all. This makes good sense as a public health policy. But individuals will make up their own minds. My Beloved consumed the occasional glass of wine while pregnant, and it didn't concern me in the slightest. Note: I am not a doctor - consult a physician, don't listen to me.

Just a few more tips on cooking the bison balls, in the event anyone feels like trying them. The versions sold at Union Square do come ready peeled, so that saves some trouble. The tricky thing is that these organs retain a great deal of moisture, and you can end up with a mushy result if you're not careful. In the past, I've tried packing them with salt to draw the moisture out. Trouble is, they seem to suck the salt in. My technique with the bison bits was ad hoc, but worked. First I soaked them in water with a few drops of vinegar for about forty minutes, changing the water frequently. At this point, they are still oozing just a little blood, so you want to keep changing the water until it isn't pink any more. Drain them well. Then slice them into disks, as if you're slicing boiled eggs for a salad. Spread them out on absorbent paper, put another sheet on top and pat it down. Leave them for a while. You can repeat this until you get bored. Then soften some chopped onions in oil, with some garlic if you like, celery - whatever. Throw your disks in and sautee them briskly. Guess what? More liquid leaches out. Drain it off. When they've changed colour and are looking a bit firmer, take them off the heat and reserve the whole mixture overnight in the fridge. Next day? Yes, more liquid. Drain it off. I gave them a final frying, checking the seasoning, and adding a little cream (some white wine or butter would have been good), for dinner on the second day. Sprinkled some chopped parsley on top - chives or chervil would be good. Now they came up firm, not mushy, and very tasty. I can see the Chicken McNugget analogy, but these are really much more interesting. Enjoy.

Me too. Oyster clear of this kind of nonsense.

1. We haven't a clue. 2. Not yet anyway. Try us again later.

A couple of people mentioned L'Acajou. I like the place less than I used to, having had some pretty average food on the last couple of visits, and once being refused a table in the restaurant section because I was single (and it was not full, and if it thinks it's more than a casual restaurant it needs to look in the mirror). But it's worth looking out for the months when they serve a regional French menu. The cooking is certainly not stupendous, but the choice of dishes, for the menus I have eaten at least, has been authentic, the food competently prepared, and the regional wine selections interesting and good value.

Yes, eel sort you out.

Good stuff, Simon. The Sweet Science was the first book by Liebling I read, and the Plimpton book is first rate too.

Oh, now I understand. I agree, enough with the poking around. "I haven't said anywhere that British food started improving around 1994/5." "the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around." Both mean the same. Fine. Whatever. And I'm a knucklehead, talking horseshit, and cutting and pasting your words. I cite some examples of British dishes wish are widely enjoyed, and you tell me they're probably Italian. I give up. Let's start a thread about A.J. Liebling's excellent prose style and agree with each other about something.

I don't know about "real", but I think Les Halles does a reasonable frisee salad. L'Absinthe would top my list, although it is becoming a little less French each year. I don't know anywhere else in New York you could get a dozen whelks from the raw bar. Artisanal, for me, doesn't have a particularly French feel, although the bistro food is good. Chelsea B&B also struck out badly on the food front - unrecognizable as French cooking; I would say the same of Capsouto Freres, even though it's run by two brothers from France. What about Chez Jacqueline and Provence in the Village? By no means great restaurants, but passably French in style. I would add Jarnac, also in the Village - the proprietor, though English, was raised in France; La Lunchonette in Chelsea (French couple run it); and, on a good day, the tiny Le Gigot. Also Chez Josephine on West 42nd. I am saying these are restaurants which to a degree remind me of eating in french bistros - not that they are necessarily among my favorites.

Have you not read James's Washington Square or Howells' A Hazard of New Fortunes? You didn't get rid of your butlers with the British, you know.

1. I am sure this is very tedious for everyone else, and perhaps for us too, but I suppose "horseshit" warrants a reply. Here are the two paragraphs from which I quoted, in their entirety. Everyone can see I cut and pasted nothing. I inserted, in square brackets, the phrase [british food] to clarify what "it" was referring to. Here they are: First quote: "You know it wasn't that the French were so benevolent and the Brits weren't. But the French realized that if they produced lots of good food, and made it affordable when comparing quality to price, there would be less pressure on them to redistribute the wealth of the upper classes. The Brits managed to skip that bit. I'm not quite sure how they got away with it. I know I keep pointing to spam etc. as the evidence, but it isn't only that. I've been traveling to Britain since 1977 and the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around. In fact, and I mentioned it in another thread, it took just one trip out of London recently for me to reexperience the poor quality I was used to for all those years. Now maybe growing up in England, what I find foul you find fair. But that is sort of like an Austrian telling me that the pervasive aroma of lard from it being used as cooking fuel in restaurants smells like roses. Well I assure you it doesn't. In fact it smells foul. But not to those who are acclimated to the smell." Second quote: "As for the availability of fresh ingredients as well as good ingredients before 1995, I am sure you are correct. But once again you are trying to make my allegations more specific than they were. I made a statement about the general level of quality before 1995. In my opinion that is when there was a significant increase in quality across the board. And my opinion is based on the fact that I have owned a business in the U.K. since 1988. And even prior to that I visited on a regular basis." I propose we drop this subject. I am not quibbling over the year. If you can't make up your mind if it was when Coast opened, or six years earlier, or whenever, let's leave it alone. I gave all my reasons for the earlier dating, as did a bunch of other contributors, and you're unable to respond. 2. Look carefully at what I said. I did not claim that any of those dishes originated in Britain. It is an interesting and difficult archaeological exercise to trace the origins of any dish. I said they were staples of British cooking, and the sorts of dishes you might find on the menu of any restaurant claiming to be British. And non-British people enjoy decent versions of them. 3. The French apply better techniques to such dishes and improve them? As I believe Jinmyo said, I don't think anyone has at any point disagreed with that. Some of us have taken exception to the claim that British cooking and food is, therefore, shit.

I think my initial calculation made no sense. Try this. Exclude factory workers, armed service workers, and anyone else who is a worker of some kind and doesn't employ servants. Then, for every one million of the remaining population (assuming these are all adults), if 85% are in service, and 15% not, each of those 15% employs on average around six servants. That's on average, and the 15% presumably includes women, who are much less likely to be employers of servants than men. I am not saying it's impossible, but it sounds a lot of servants per average male employer. 97% would be more implausible, of course.