slkinsey

Unfortunately, I've never overnighted in Ascoli Piceno. The commune web site seems to offer a few interesting sounding choices, though. The drive from Norcia should be a good one... it's the SS4 Salaria just about all the way, and shouldn't take more than an hour at most.

I know someone who would gladly help you in this trying circumstance. Dude... I am so inviting you over for dinner the next time I visit my parents in Houston.

I always thought that the prohibition against salting beans had to do with toughening the skin of the beans rather than the actual flesh. Anyone else heard this, or am I making it up?

But, Sam, it seems she has no such aversion. You don't think so? That's what I make of this: She has strong personal motivations to not eat certain foods, some for reasons of taste and some for health concerns. In my book, that's in the same category as my dislike for squash.

Yes. And attempt to assess the preparation, even if her opinions of these dishes aren't explicit in her review. If she had some extreme aversion to the offal, that's one thing. But her response in this thread suggested that she didn't. I'm not so sure I agree, actually. For example, as mentioned elsewhere in these forums, I have a serious and longstanging dislike for squash, eggplant and okra. I find them intensely disgusting, and according to my parents have found them so practically since the day I first took solid food. Understanding this, there is no way I could hope to comment on the preparation of, for example, ratatouille. How could I, when I would have to steel my nerves and force myself to choke down that (to me) revolting slop? Now, if I were the main NYT reviewer, I would find a way to reeducate my palate and learn to like (ugh) squash, eggplant and okra. But, if I found myself in a temporary assignment thrown into reviewing a restaurant whose chef featured "extra-slimy okra" and "squash-stuffed eggplant" I, too, would skip these items. I can only hope I would have Ms. Burros' ethical fortitude to disclose this in my review. The only other option is to refuse the assignment, which may not always be a viable one. She gave it the "proper" number of stars without experiencing an important part of the menu. If Casa Mono's chefs were messing up the offal dishes, she wouldn't even know about it, and the "proper" number of stars might be inaccurate. Now that I think about it, should Casa Mono be a two-star restaurant? Or a great one-star? Well... there's a very fine line between a two star and a "great one star" anyway. One can argue that question until the cows come home. Perhaps if I found myself in her shoes -- reviewing "Skip's Squash and Eggplant Shack" -- I would take along a few trusted squashophile friends with good palates and ask for their impressions about the execution. I don't know. Are we talking about the ideal world or the real world? In the ideal world, the reviewer who doesn't like beef would never be assigned to review Peter Luger, or at the very least would have a boss who would be happy to let him out of such an assignment. In the real world, however, something like this might happen. So, put yourself in the reviewer's shoes... what do you do? Do you march down to your editor's office and refuse the assignment? If your answer is yes -- I guess you don't like working there very much anyway, so losing your job won't be such a big deal. Then again, when word gets around that you rocked the boat it might impact your ability to get hired elsewhere... But of course, this is a matter of principle! You, the reviewer, should gladly sacrifice your job and career in the service of Food (note the capital "F"). In fact, it is incumbent upon you to do so! Or maybe not... Generally, in the real world, the reviewer takes the assignment and does the best he can. That's the way it works.

does everyone really think she gave it the proper number of stars? Haven't been yet, but from what I understand, I thought 0 would have been more appropriate. Most people I know who have been there seem to agree that the number of stars was appropriate. As for eGullet, we have: The emphasis is mine. You may draw your own conclusions and are, of course, entitled to your own opinion... although I am not quite sure what reports form the basis of "what you understand."

It's all about picking the right pan for the righe job. The thing about a sauteuse evasee is that it is fundamentally a reduction pan. The idea is to have a wide surface area for evaporation so sauces, etc. reduce quickly and efficiently. Curved sides make it easy to get a whisk or spoon around to all the corners. As mentioned in my previous post, this design happens to work well for sauteing in the large sizes (11 inches -- or 10.5 inches in the case of the All-Clad pan you're thinking of buying). The smaller sizes aren't so useful in this respect. So... this is the deal: you probably don't want every pan in your battery to be optimized for reductions and sauce making. Sometimes you would like to have a pan for reheating liquids, boiling water, blanching vegetables, holding sauces at temperature, etc. without having the liquid reduce, evaporate, form a skin, etc. In this case, you wouldn't want a sauteuse evasee, because a sauteuse evasee is designed to give you exactly what you don't want... you would rather have a tall saucepan, which is designed to give you the things you want. The only situation in which you would want a 4 quart sauteuse evasee would be if you were regularly making a lot of sauce or reducing a lot of liquid. Probably not the case in the usual home kitchen. Furthermore, a sauteuse evasee is a straight gauge pan. Straight gauge cookware is more expensive, and not necessarily useful in the kinds of tasks I describe above. In situations where you would like a tall saucepan, why not spend your money putting extra thermal material (aluminum, copper, whatever) on the bottom of the pan where it's needed instead of on the sides where it's not doing you much good?

A few things here: I definitely find that an 11" saute pan is the smallest useful size, unless one is cooking very small amounts of food. A 9.5" saute might be more useful in a restaurant where portions are typically prepared for only one person at a time. But in the home, I think it's a mistake to get anything smaller than 11 inches (in fact, for those with a regular domestic stove I think it's 11 inches or nothing, as these stoves are really too weak to heat a larger saute pan properly unless you get a thick bottom pad and massively preheat). The thing to consider when looking at a curved or straight sauteuse evasee is that the diameter measurement is for the top of the pan, not the bottom. An 11 inch curved sauteuse evasee actually has a 9.5 inch cooking surface. Interestingly, my experience is that an 11 inch sauteuse evasee "cooks bigger" than a 9.5 inch saute pan due to the special configuration of the pan, even though the bottoms of the two pans are the same size. However, what this means is that sauteuses evasee are only useful for sauteing at the 11 inch size and larger. Frypans are one of those pans which can be useful in a lot of sizes. FWIW, I would also probably take the 30 cm pan over thge 24 cm pan myself. That said, I am not sure extra depth really helps much with a frypan -- the whole idea is to have low sloping sides to allow better evaporation. I have a 9.5 inch saute pan and don't use it much. It would never hold enough pasta and sauce for two people. Personally, I'd go with an 11 inch curved sauteuse evasee or, as a second choice, an 11 inch saute pan.

Come on, Mark. I'll say it again: this is the restaurant reviewer -- however temporary -- for the New York Times. It is her duty during the short time for which she holds this position, as I said a few posts above, to comment on the execution of a restaurant's menu. I think there are several things worthy of note here: Ms. Burros is not the regular NYT reviewer, and does not appear to seek to be the regular restaurant reviewer. Were she to take this job on a full-time basis, then perhaps some "palate reeducation" a la Steingarten might be recommended to broaden the scope of her reviewing. There isn't much point in doing this for a temporary gig. Understanding the above, I would argue that she made the best out of a restaurant assignment for which she was not particularly well suited. I imagine that even Ms. Burros would admit she was not the ideal fit to review this restaurant. But what were her choices? Refuse to review that restaurant? Eat a bunch of food she already knows she doesn't like? Given that she does have a strong aversion to many of the things that seem central to Batali's aesthetic, I think it was admirable for her to come right out with it in the review. Plenty of food writers would simply have skipped over those things. I find it interesting that most everyone agrees she gave the restaurant a fair assessment and the proper number ot stars, etc.

The really funny thing about this is that it's true. I was there.

Ummm.. ..ugghhhh.. ..aarrggghhh.... ...aaaack Aw Sam, I don't even know where to start. Those three things, in various varieties, are some of the very reasons I plant a too large garden every year. I'm certain that we can find some common ground somewhere............... Dude, considering that my parents are from the South... common ground with those three foods was aggressively, one could even say forcibly, and it certainly seemed frequently sought for around 17 years.

squash eggplant okra

Wait a while and get the new Hearthware iRoast. You can change the roast profile, timing, etc. I have never found the Hearthware Precision's small capacity problematic, because I find that I can roast all the beans I use in a typical week in three "sessions" and I prefer to drink coffee from beans <1 week old.

Bummer! I was just at a dinner where a like amount of just-rendered duck fat went onto the floor. I recommend spraying the area thoroughly with a grease cutter like Windex and wiping up, then if there is still a slippery place, mop (or sponge) with a strong Lestoil solution.

Now that my grandmother, after 97 years of exemplary chicken fried steak cookery in Texas, has gone to her great reward... I just don't know when I'll ever find another example that measures up. I am quite sure I've never had it in a restaurant, ever.

Oh yea... it's not often that a dish comes to the table and causes both Fat Guy and me to break into laughter just thinking about what we're going to do to ourselves when we eat it.

indeed, my friend. Yuck. My favorite paragraph was the final one: Exactly.

Dude... they can both be incendiary, trust me. But we've developed a good rapport with our regular waiter there, and perhaps he knows we can take the heat.

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Just kept forgetting about it, so... I think you're right to get a disk bottom pan in this size. In fact, you may find that you never make so much sauce that you require a fully clad pan in this size. Just one thing to mention... a 3.5 quart pan is way too small for boiling pasta. In my opinion, and understanding your probable use... probably no advantage to having a copper base.

Congratulations, dude. This can now be a celebratory dinner!

IMO, a tomato sauce would just obscure the delicate flavor of the seafood. Ricotta and shrimp/scallops doesn't do too much for me either. I'd be inclined to chop them both, with herbs and maybe a little pureed potato for the filling -- then do a simple brown butter, perhaps with a few capers. That's my two cents.

This is quite typical for a polished stainless steel surface. Get yourself some Bar Keeper's Friend and those stains will come off in no time. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Induc'inox is magnetic steel fully clad with stainless steel, and it is around 2 mm thick. This specification is not great from a thermal standpoint because magnetic steel does not have good heat characteristics over traditional heat. As you have discovered, this is readily apparent in a pan with a large cooking surface like a sauté pan. You're cooking over ~2 mm of magnetic steel, which is way too thin. I'd much rather have 4 mm (minimum) to 7 mm (preferred) of aluminum or 2 - 2.5 mm of copper down there. Even 2 mm of aluminum (as in All-Clad Stainless) would be better than 2 mm of magnetic steel over standard heat, and I think even that is more appropriate to a small (1 - 2 qt) sauce pan or similar. I personally wouldn't recommend an Induc'inox sauté pan, or indeed any pan from this line for anyone who is not currently using induction. These pans are designed to be used with induction, and the thermal properties are not good over a traditional heat source. Yes. Both results are entirely expected given the materials specifications for a Mauviel Indic'inox sauté pan.

I'm going with a very ecumenical menu: New England clam chowder and baby back ribs.

Many of you are already in the know, but for those that aren't... We at eGullet would like to direct your attention to Elyse's new web site: The Burger Club. At The Burger Club, Elyse has taken her considerable enthusiasm for burgers and all things burger-related and developed an entire range of discussion forums. We are happy that the BC idea fell on fertile ground here at eGullet, and hope that The Burger Club grows into a thriving online community. All interested eGulleteers are encouraged to explore The Burger Club and join the fun. Many of the core NYC Burger Clubbers are already involved in discussion on The Burger Club, and there is already an existing thread underway on today's NYC outing. In order to avoid the confusion of a bifurcated discussion about the same gathering taking place on two different sites, and to encourage membership registration at Elyse's new site, we have decided to lock this thread and ask that BC/NY conversation be continued over at The Burger Club. Please join us in welcoming Elyse's Burger Club site into the family of what we hope will one day be many web sites grown out of ideas born in our forums.

Okay... reading one of JJ's links above, it looks like a trip to First Avenue's Foccacceria for a vesteddi is in order. Who's up for it?