Wilfrid

I think the determining factor, Adam, must be whether you intend to eat what you have made as an antipasto or as antipasti. Just trying to be helpful.

First a question. I used to find pre-packaged frozen dough with ease when I lived in the UK. I have been looking for it in New York for years, but only ever find blind pie cases, usually full of sugar. What am I doing wrong? Where is this stuff? Thank you. And also, thanks for the parmesan tip. I have been keeping it in the fridge, and finding that it gets brown and crumbly before I ever finish it; I'll try the freezer. I too use the freezer to keep stock, usually frozen into cubes in the ice tray. Although frozen pastry is not ideal, I usually buy an excess of pork pies and sausage rolls when I visit Myers of Keswick, and some of them end up frozen. One of the main uses of the freezer, however, is to keep some of my own cooked dishes which I think freeze okay - typically stews, braises, and casseroles. If I am making, for example, tripes a la mode de Caen, braised oxtail, a cassoulet, or coq au vin, I find its worth making twice as much as I need, then freezing a few portions (I use plastic containers saved from Chinese takeaways). I don't think these types of dishes suffer much from this treatment - and , in any case, a thawed out home made stew, if it's good, is better than a last-minute junk food purchase.

Nice technique, Adam, and I must try it. Two other ways to enjoy the result: in Barcelona, they shave botarga over pa amb tomaquet, toasted country bread rubbed with the best fresh tomato. I have also seen it used - sparingly - to spark up a salad; use some shaved parmesan too.

I think I do agree with that. I tried to make a similar point on the Papillon thread, and probably did it rather clusmily, but let me repeat my remarks in any case: "I think I agree with Suvir's sentiment. I did eat Liebrandt's food at Atlas, and I think my opinions are not much different from others expressed on this thread. It is great to have the opportunity to eat adventurous food prepared with precision. And of course, not all restaurants in New York are going to follow the Liebrandt route. What saddens me, however, is the spectacle of many young chefs around town succumbing to the pressure to present menus with novel dishes, fashionable ingredients or unusual combinations of ingredients, when one senses they do not have a mastery of the basics."

You surprise me. I mind spending a fortune on a bad meal, regardless of whether it affords an opportunity for erudition. I shouldn't have thought there were "many" people who fit your description. But who knows? As to the original topic of the thread, I should have thought the trend identified by the Samuelsson quote is in large part an epiphenomenon of globalization and/or world shrinkage (two sides of the same coin). In short, cultural trends - including gastronomic trends - spread with a rapidity unheard of twenty or even ten years ago; and likewise, few regional cuisines are protected from such trends by geographic remoteness. It once took many years for changes in one country's eating habits to register elsewhere. Now it may take only weeks. This, of course, is a general cultural phenomenon, and has its advantages and disadvantages (he muttered, straddling the fence).

The wrestling move is alive and well at Wilton's. A friend of mine barely shrugged his jacket from his shoulders before he was held down and popped back into it again. Highly amusing restaurant Wilton's, and I save a lot of money by not being able to go there too often.

I think I can get away with that. I have been coming in for some scrutiny recently. I was asked at 8.45am today whether I would be visiting a bar tonight. At least we are no longer living across the street from an AA meeting, which I was frequently invited to attend by my dear and thoughtful partner. There's a good chance she's going to be on a solo window shade buying mission in Queen's tomorrow. I think she's bound to be back late from that!

I just checked to make sure we weren't too early for the season. Gramercy Fish have shad roe available now. Yum.

I may be duplicating my posts here, but the last one seems to have vanished. Cabrales, we seem to be discussing the daily alcohol issue over here: http://www.egullet.com/ib3....24;t=66 No, I wasn't thinking of the time of day. Only the notion that excessive alcohol can be bad for you By the way, Horlicks was a popular bedtime drink in the UK when I was a kid, along with Ovaltine, Cadbury's drinking chocolate and various cocoas. Haven't tasted it in years.

It's epidemiology. We'd need to look at the studies to see if there's any systematic bias among the samples - you can't just assume there is; that's exactly like assuming an experiment doesn't have a proper control. And looking at epidemiological studies is thirsty work, believe me.

And it is also the day that Balicians (followers of A Balic) meet under a blasted oak in the last hour before dawn to sacrifice a silky bantam.

In the UK, the medical community adopted a points system in order to get the message about sensible drinking across to the presumed dim-witted public. Score one point for a half pint of beer, a measure of spirits (licensed premises in the UK serve tiny measures of hard liquor, by law) or a glass of wine (probably your 5oz). The medics then prescribed a weekly point limit for men, and a lower one for women. What were the limits? I can't remember, I wasn't paying the slightest attention. Suffice to say that the only people among my group of friends who were within the limits were the recovering alcoholics. I believe the limits were even reduced at some point. The regime Ruby describes is equally ridiculous for most drinkers - I am sure there are lots of people who don't really drink who easily stay within the limits prescribed. I remember a discussion with my GP (family physician) about this, when I lived in London. Along the following lines: Dr: (Having explained the point system) What is your weekly intake? Wilfrid: (Randomly) Depends on the week. I don't know. Sixty? Seventy? Dr: (Seriously) Do you realise you are drinking more than is good for you? Wilfrid: Bless me, no, that never occurred to me. What an absolute revelation...etc, etc. Taking Tommy's point seriously - no, Tommy, you're wrong. Unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, it's fair to assume that other health risks (such as smoking, exposure to other peope's smoke, lack of exercise, systemic hypertension, etc) were evenly distributed across the populations of drinkers in the studies (i.e. non-drinkers, moderate drinkers, heavy drinkers, or whatever) and therefore should not skew the results.

Such observations are easily made, but I am always at a loss as to what moral precepts to draw from them. I can think of two plausible inferences: 1. If you spend an amount equal to the annual wages of a Colombian family on a meal, then regardless of whether the meal is good or bad, you should say it is good. 2. You should never spend an amount equal to the annual wages of a Colombian family on a meal. Perhaps we are enjoined to adopt 1. above in the belief that restraint in the expression of critical judgments in such circumstances is a mark of sympathy and respect for those less fortunate than ourselves. But since neither the hypothetical Columbian family, nor any surrogates we might postulate, are likely ever to know what the diners thought of the meal - and certainly they derive no practical benefits from the diners' circumspection - the proposal seems at best ineffectual and at worst self-indulgent. Inference 2. simply begs the question - why not? As I observed in a different thread, massive inequities in the distribution of the world's goods are not to be rectified by individual decisions as to which bottle of wine to open or whether to eat both cheese and a pudding. And of course, both 1. and 2. beg a further question: what is the threshhold at which it is morally unimpeachable either to eat the dinner or to express a negative opinion about it? A Colombian family's monthly wage? A Haitian family's weekly wage? Or is the conclusion that we are morally culpable if we enjoy any meal which is not equally affordable by everyone? The Australian philosopher Peter Singer has advanced arguments along such lines, but they are fallacious and politically naive. Of course, Michael Lewis may mean something quite different from any of this - but if so, I haven't a clue what it is.

Following pre-dinner drinks and some wine with dinner, I usually turn my attention to a Janneau bas-armagnac. I also have a bottle of Otard XO cognac open at the moment (a present). Sometimes, however, my palate calls for a liqueur: then it's cointreau or amaretto on the rocks. If you really want to bludgeon yourself into unconsciousness, mix the cointreau with an equal part gin and call it a White Lady. By the way, I agree daily alcohol is a bad idea, but have no notion how to avoid it.

Without wishing to get into semen, I would say hard roe. They come as zillions of miniscule little eggs, encased in a thin membrane.

Looks like shad roe season is here (or just around the corner). I love this stuff, and try to cook and eat it several times during the too brief period of availability. My usual recipes come from - of all places - Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe cookbook. Wolfe was fond of shad roe, and liked it richly casseroled with plenty of cream. From memory, my favorite approach is to separate the pair of roe very carefully indeed, turn them in a little hot olive oil to start them changing colour, then add some chopped onion, a little crushed garlic, and the best aromatic herbs I have to hand - fresh parsley or chervil, chives, whatever - then some cream for the roe to poach in. Done in about fifteen minutes as I recall (maybe you should pre-cook the onions a little). I think Stout also has a version with the roe wrapped in ham or bacon. Lift them from the pan and plate them carefully - they're delicate. Over to everyone else...

Me too. Has anyone visiting this Board ever been to Rao's? (I seem to recall a thread a while back from someone who'd got a table there; anyone else?)

Hmmm. They must have come with the thick outer membrane removed, I presume, otherwise it's pretty clear what they are. Did you just get egg-shaped spongy-looking things without an outer skin? I agree, these are delicious, mild-flavored offal items, which anyone can enjoy if they're not squeamish. I always soak them in water with a little vinegar before cooking, which drains off some bloody residue and also firms them up a little. The main difficulty with cooking them is that they retain a lot of moisture, so they can get a bit mushy unless sauteed pretty briskly. I had given up any hope of finding them in New York, so thanks for the Union Square tip.

We went to the Mansion on Turtle Creek a couple of summers back (and I don't suppose it's changed much). The drive out of Dallas (it's not far out) on a warm summers evening, and arrival at the fairy-lit Mansion was exceptionally romantic. It's a beautifully appointed restaurant, the service very formal, and Fearing was in the kitchen. I remember the food was good, but almost too rich. My Beloved and I both ate a very meaty lamb dish, featuring lamb fillet, sweetbreads, and I think liver too, in a rich gravy. My complaint was that the ingredients melded together almost indistinguishably, making it a kind of rich hot-pot. But it was by no means a bad dish. Thinking back, I believe this was on the end of a week in New Orleans, so we were probably fairly pigged out already. Overall, it was a pampering, millionaire-type experience, and came with a pampering millionaire-type check. But I'd go back.

By the way, I picked up some luxury comfort food last night from the French Butcher (2nd Avenue between 22nd and 23rd, Manhattan). He makes a meat loaf which he sells you for $16. However, he pumps some nice meat into it, including, I suspect, a little foie gras. It will feed two gluttons, or three normal people, so it's not quite as outrageously expensive as it might sound. Popular with fourteen month old babies too, we discovered.

I was surprised to find that it's readily available in any New York corner store. Along with several kinds of meat paste. C'mon, which of you Americans is eating this stuff?

I too have found ostrich a little tough and dry. I think the last time I had it was at Chanterelle of all places (a silly thing to order in the circumstances). Saltiness sounds like a kitchen error.

Not wishing to throw up my hands in despair, but do we really need more than three months to plan the dinner? If we can't do it sooner than June, I would just as soon forget about discussing it until some time in May. Sorry, am I being grouchy? if the reason is that Steven Shaw is away for a couple of months, and that it would be sensible to have him directly involved in the Bid dinner, then that's absolutely fine. Otherwise, can we not risk slightly greater haste?

I have a wonderful mental picture of Nico Ladenis singing with the Velvet Underground.

Yvonne: Sorry about the "rarebit", I must be getting snooty - but I agree, the dish I ate in my childhood by that name was just cheese on toast with Lea & Perrins. Pilchards on toast too, absolutely. I was reflecting this morning, that although I list these comfort dishes, I actually hardly ever eat any of them. Then you jogged a guilty realisation. I do sometimes buy tins of Spam and make Spam sandwiches. I have done so within the last month. My condiment, however, is coleslaw, which provides a bit of crunch to offset the sponginess of the bread and Spam. Mango chutney doesn't sound wise. On the smoked fish and eggs thing; everyone seems to agree it's a classic. Personally, I think the smoked haddock which I mentioned is quite a different deal to smoked lox, sturgeon, etc. Smoked haddock can't be eaten as it comes. It has to be cooked, and it's typically served in a big, meaty chunk with a poached egg on top (and maybe some melted butter). A very different kind of dish to thinly sliced lox with scrambled eggs, for example.