balex

Avoid tiled counter tops like the plague. I have one at the moment and it is useless for any purpose other than resting stuff on. Oh jackal10 said that already. Well he's right.

So this is a variant of a normal East Asian cooking technique, without the oil. So the pan is at a high temperature ( above 100C), you sprinkle with water which sizzles as the drops hit the bottom of the pan. You get some browning since the pan is hot, but what stops it sticking is there is no oil?

Grigio means grey in Italian Gris means grey in French (if this helps)

I did a bit of googling and found this amusingly incoherent entry which claims saute as a Chinese technique -- from Culinary dictionary This page Shallow frying is quite close to my use. There are probably differences in English American and French usages of the term.

I am not sure I agree with this. The etymology you give is quite correct but it does not reflect current usage. What you describe is more commonly called stir-frying. To me saute means more or less -- fry in a small amount of fat. Not even particularly fast either. By the way, all I am describing is how the word is actually used, and what it actually means, not what it should mean. Water saute is nonsense though. Unless it means something like that Chinese technique where you splash a bit of water on vegetables as you are stri-frying them.

I did this quite a lot in Italy with pork when I was into BBQ. Getting the right bit of shoulder was tricky until I worked out that it was called neck not shoulder and then it was easy. But yes, in general they like dealiing with something a bit unusual.

Thanks Moby -- I see a long and awkward session in the butchers looming.

Well ok, you (or someone who wants to claim that there is a lot of snobbery) now can provide some evidence for snobbery by mentioning a current thread that is full of snobbery. Then I retort with another non snobbery thread etc. and then we just start hurling insults at each other. That's how we scientists resolve disputes.

one exception doesn't prove anything. It's not proof, it's evidence

I don't know if this has been said before on this thread but I have a two word rebuttal for anyone that claims that food snobbery is prevalent on eG: Burger Club. It is much less snobby now than it used to be when he who must not be named was on the site, thank God.

But does nobody go for that relationship stuff where there is an individual who knows your tastes and can say 'try this" ? For me there are three sorts of wine buying. a) after research I decide I want to buy a case of a particular wine and so I search around until I find it and buy it on price and convenience (and provenance if it is old). b) when it comes to Burgundy where I am especially not an expert, I listen to the recommendations of someone I trust at a wine merchant. Anything I've heard of is probably overpriced. c) I am in a supermarket and I grab something of the shelves almost at random. But for me I definitely want to talk to knowledgable people for a substantial fraction of my wine buying.

What about auctions? Or the more wholesaley side of things like Farr vintners or John Armit? I just orderd a few cases from Farr vintners who have a very good sale on at the moment: Farr

Following Gus's suggestion, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about who we buy our wine from. I use four channels: supermarkets -- Waitrose (ocado) I haven't found this very good high street off licenses -- Oddbins -- have some good stuff wine merchants -- e.g. Corney and Barrow (overpriced), Morris & Verdin (v good for Burgundy ) internet ( everywine is quite fun but erratic pricing). there is also Majestic who don't quite fit into these categories. I definitely favour the old-fashioned wine merchants. Oddbins used to have clueful staff but not consistently anymore.

The Court of Appeal doesn't agree with you: "[a penalty clause] will not be enforced... beyond the sum which represents [the] actual loss" (Jobson v Jobson (1989)). If the restaurant was (as is likely to be the case) full on the night in question, then the only actual loss resulting from the cancellation will be the administrative costs of making/cancelling the reservation. I find it hard to believe these amount to £20 per cover, where the average per person bill is around is £50. Jobson v Johnson, not Jobson v Jobson. But what do those saps know about anything. I'll take this to the House of Lords . I'll take your word for it. I really am not a lawyer. So in summary even if it is a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss, if it exceeds the actual loss, then it willl not be enforceable in full? You learn something every day.

It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding. The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there. If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding. Legal but not binding...? Sorry that was very unclear. The contract will be legal and binding; but the particular term relating to the penalty (if such it is) will not be enforced. However in this case, it seems to be reasonable as an estimate of loss so it probably is valid. (IANAL)

It is legal -- the particular term relating to the penalty -- if it is a penalty -- is not binding. The cancellation fee is clearly not the consideration -- you are right there. If it is punitive then it is not binding -- but £20 or whatever seems reasonable not punitive and therefore binding.

No. I think that credit card bookings are entirely reasonable. You don't go on holiday without booking and paying for it - you take out insurance for last minute cancellations. By taking a credit card, the restaurant is taking out insurance. I can't help but think back to one of the initial points that Clerkenwellian came up with. HE/SHE HAD TO CANCEL BY 2.00PM - HE/SHE PHONED AT 3.00PM. Please help me here. What part of 2.00pm was not undserstood? To me, the initial phone call comes into the realms of contract law in England. An offer and acceptance took place. Consideration (legal def.) on both parts would have taken place if C had eaten there. However, C broke the contract, and therefore had to pay consideration as per the original contract to the restaurant. The legal situation isn't that simple. This counts as a liqiudated damage claim which must be reasonable. If it is £30 then it is reasonable related to the gross profit, or some fraction of the gross profit that corresponds to the chance of the table remaining unfilled. And taking the credit card isn't really 'insurance' -- they are just taking care of the credit risk of the cancellation charge being unpaid.

I think it's important never to forget the importance of simplicity and honesty. Never forget that some of the best meals have come out of the least well-equipped kitchens. Never forget (I read that you should say things three times for rhetorical effect), brothers and sisters (now I've gone too far), that what people talk about in the media is just what is new and trendy, not what is good. Don't try to find the perfect dish -- try to find the perfection in everything you eat. (I am serious, but I am English so we have to cloak our sincerity in irony)

I have a couple of times got fish and chips wrapped in paper printed to look like newspaper (but presumably in line with health and safety regulations). A nice touch.

I just had some of the regular cuvee of the Clos Roilette. It's great! For UK readers, Lea and Sandeman have it at just under £10 a bottle (just next to the Black & Blue where the burger club had a meeting). The cuvee tardive is not available here but the chap at L & S I spoke to said they might have it next year, because the regular one has sold well. Thanks for the pointer Jim.

I have been meaning to ask about this for some time -- what are short ribs called in England?

I agree with you that the key is to find a critic who likes the same things you do -- just like with movies. Coates' antagonism to Parker is not primarily motivated by jealousy -- he has a good wall of awards as well-- he is motivated by the fact that he completely disagrees with Parker's taste. Coates dislikes Pomerol, southern Rhone etc. and loves classic claret and Burgundy. They are poles apart. Coates is in the process of moving to France which is a shame because he had a good series of tastings at his house in Chiswick.

Then a wine from Napa is essentially a wine from Napa. Even in the USA, Im tempted to add. Thats what I wanted to hear: the framework for protection for designators of origin does already exist in the USA. All the French (and the rest of the western world) want is indiscrimating application of such a legal framework, whether the producer is a foreigner or not. In the very sense of fair trade. Boris, I think cdh's point is that Champagne is now a generic term (like Cheddar) that is used in the US just to mean a dry sparkling white wine. Cheddar of course is not used to mean a sort of white wine. So maybe it's not like that at all. Now I'm confused .

I was more thinking of running into somebody in a wine shop while shopping for champagne and being on the receiving end of a rant about how evil Korbel or other such are. If shrill browbeaters are called into service in the cause, then the cause is already lost. Re your beer crack... maybe I would rather a case of Rochefort 10 or Westvleteren 12 rather than a bottle of Cristal sometimes. If Champagne gets shrill and annoying, then I might just act on that impulse. You see, I'm something of a contrarian by nature-- I'm inclined to question and pick apart any command given to me, and if it is unfounded, then to ignore it. If the Champegnoise are going to step out from behind their mystique and start issuing commands, then my questioning analytical nature will be engaged. Champagne: You must only celebrate with real Champagne from Champagne! (preferably LVMH or Domecq owned products, since they're probably paying for this) Me: Oh yeah? why? Maybe I'd like to celebrate with a Burgundy or maybe a Riesling... or that lovely Gewurz that smells like roses... Champagne: No! You have always celebrated with fizzy wine, and it must be our fizzy wine. Me: Now why did I always gravitate toward fizzy wines in celebratory situations? Hmmm... thoughtless reflex, I guess... and it goes so well with the caviar. No caviar today, so I don't need to limit myself to champagne. Now what will go well with those lamb chops... 1. Shrill browbeaters often are involved in worthwhile and ultimately successful endeavours -- women's suffrage for instance. 2. Questioning is good -- and I agree when someone tells me I have to do it, I often have the knee-jerk reaction to say "Why the hell should I?". That is a good thing. Sometimes there is a reason, in which case you should do it. 3. There is no reason at all why you can't celebrate with something else -- nor is Champagne a special occasion wine -- I drink it regularly (once a week maybe). 4. Beyond trademark protection, which you accept, surely you also accept basic principles of truthful labelling -- you can only call something beef if it comes from a cow. There is a genuine argument about whether and to what extent legal rpotection should e extended to particular geographical designators, and to what extent they have just become generic terms. Can 'Cheddar' only be made in a certain region of England? Extending protection clearly will have some consequences -- we could have a rational argument about this, if it's not too late. A good start would be to admit that Champagne producers stand to benefit from extending these protections to the American market, just as they have benefitted from their protection in Europe. Conversely, they will lose financially if they fail to extend these rights. Please don't think that because I use the word 'right' I think it is necessarily a beneficial thing, nor that I think they should have these rights. Whether consumers will benefit is a different issue, and though the Champagne producers may put this forward as championing consumer rights that is, as English lawyers say, complete bollocks.

I'll try this one. I have had a lot of nice surprises in Swiss wine.