slkinsey

Yes, you are correct. So what exactly will call for a sauté pan? I have a Circulon Wok that I pretty much do all my main cooking on. I just need to replace my saucepans and stockpots and frypan which are either warped, useless or teflon is coming off, respectively. Sauté pans are useful for... (wait for it)... sautéing. The sauteing process is where ingredients (usually in "chunk" form) are jumped around in the pan over high heat so as to brown them evenly on all sides. A sauté pan is also useful for times when you would like to fry something, then add liquid and a lid for a quick braising/reduction. I also like to use a sauté pan for making quick pasta sauces, because I can toss the not-quite-cooked pasta into the sauté pan along with the sauce to cook for the last minute or two. If you're happy with your wok (which is a pan that I personally don't care for over a standard residential heat source) then you probably don't need a sauté pan. Seems like a standard steamer pot to me (which is to say, a pot that fits on the top of a pot of simmering water and has a perforated bottom to allow steam to pass into it). I don't do a lot of steaming, so I can't tell you exactly how it works. But it's not clear to me that an expensive steamer insert works any better than a cheapo folding steamer you can get in the hardware store for 3 bucks.

Here are some of my new thoughts on this: 1. The first part of the question, why Italian food in [insert country] doesn't taste the same as it does in Italy, even when executed the same way, does seem to come down to ingredients. This is fundamentally true of most cooking, as one cannot make truly "like in Spain" tasting Spanish food outside of Spain -- indeed, it is difficult even to make "like in New York" New York pizza outside of New York. Italian food, due to the fact that it is relatively uncomplicated and is generally designed to highlight the ingredients, is more sensitive to these problems than many other styles of cooking. 2. Understanding #1 above, it should still be possible to make first rate food in the Italian style using the excellent ingredients that we have available to us here in the US. The food won't taste exactly like it does in Italy, but it will still be excellent. My feeling is that there are several such restaurants. The examples I used upthread about Felidia being Italian-traditional in America and Babbo being Italian-forward in America illustrates the two different approaches that these restaurants might take. 3. The assumption taken by some here is that there aren't any truly good or first-rate Italian (as opposed to Italian-American) restaurants in America. This is something with which I take issue. I would argue that there are a number of first-rate Italian restaurants in New York City alone. Do they taste exactly like restaurants in Italy? No, this is impossible per #1 above. Are there differences in portion size and other things that "pervert" the Italian ideal? Sure there are. They aren't in Italy selling to Italians with Italian expectations and Italian customs. But, I would suggest that this doesn't make them inherrently "bad." All the "French" restaurants in New York make similar diversions from the originals in France, and they aren't marked down for it. 4. Looking at the high end of dining, however, one has to ask what the criteria are for a "great, top-level restaurant." The model used by many people is a predominately French one, where complex, complicated preparations and artful presentations take pride of place over simple treatments, clean flavors and basic presentations. Take fish, for example... I would assert that Estiatorio Milos serves the best fish in New York City in the best way possible: simply grilled whole and served with some lemon and a little evoo. Why isn't this considered the best fish restaurant in the city? Why is another (hypothetical) restaurant, that serves salmon with a potato/horseradish crust and yuzu vinaigrette be considered a "better" restaurant? As I have remarked before, Italian culinary culture is based in home cooking and Italian restaurant culture is still relatively young (largely post WW II). This does not lend itself to the flights of fancy and execution that usually characterize a high-end neo-French restaurant. I wonder, however, whether or not we feel that there are a lot of "really good" French restaurants outside of France serving elevated versions of the simpler French cooking that highlights and depends on characteristic locally available ingredients. Or, really, are there in fact a lot of good truly French restaurants outside of France? 5. Considering #4 above, it makes me wonder whether or not there are any truly great restaurants replicating a certain regional cuisine outside the region that gave birth to that cuisine. My guess is that the answer is no. The one thing that makes neo-French food travel so well is that what we think of fundamentally as "French cooking" is not necessarily a specific range of dishes, ingredients and flavors so much as it is a technique -- which is to say, a systematic and codified approach to cooking food. In America, one may make a dish of squab and spring vegetables (or whatever) and end up with a result that is considered "good French food" even though that specific dish may have no equivalent in France and may not feature even any characteristically French ingredients. I would also suggest that it is easier to obscure the fact that a dish is made with slightly lesser ingredients if one is making Tournedos a la Rossini than it is if one is making Bistecca alla Fiorentina. Italian cooking, on the other hand, is very technique non-intensive. The Italian techniques of cooking food are few, and all are easily mastered at the level of the competent home cook. Good Italian food is not so much about cooking as it is about shopping. 6. But really, when it all comes down to it, the real reason Italian restaurants in America aren't as good as they are in Italy is that there aren't many Italian restaurants in America. 99.99% of the "Italian" restaurants in America are, in fact, Italian-American. Someone who is expecting real Italian food, and can sense the roots of Italian cooking -- however much diluted -- in Italian-American food, is not likely to be satisfied in an Italian-American restaurant. In terms of other countries, there are related problems. French cooks, for example, by and large just don't get it. It is still not entirely rare to see a cook in France do things like boil pasta for 20 minutes in milk. Perhaps a more interesting question might be: What national cuisines do travel well to other countries. And, of those national cuisines, what is it about them that travels well? Or, more to the point, what part of them travels well and what is it about certain cuisines that allows us to identify a partial transplantation of one country's cuisine as "good X food" and not others?

I care because several people here have said "Italians are more interested in food than Americans" and they've gone on to use that theory (which they have stated as fact) to explain other things. Thus, understanding that claim is important to answering the questions we seem to be trying to answer here. If it turns out that interest in food -- as a statistical measure -- is as high or higher in the US than in Italy, yet food quality turns out to be higher in Italy, then we'll know that interest does not explain quality. That, to me, would have to alter some of the assumptions that have been made by many on this thread. Steven, the problem with this line of reasoning is that interest in food and culinary culture cannot be measured statistically in the way you suggest. Take me, for example... I think you know me well enough to know that I am not only deeply interested in food, but especially in cooking and entertaining in my home. I also have, as I think this thread demonstrates, a great interest in the Italian philisophy of cooking. I would suggest that I am in the top 0.1% of Americans when it comes to caring about food (which is something I would say about most of the readers of this site). Understanding the foregoing, what are we to make of the fact that I only subscribe to one food-related magazine (Saveur)? What are we to make of the fact that I own less than 20 cookbooks, and that fully half of them are about making bread? Six months from now, when I get around to giving away all the cookbooks I haven't opened in over two years, I'll probably have around 8. What does it mean that I open "The Joy of Cooking" and Julia Child's "How to Cook" more frequently than any other cookbooks I own (including the "Italian Bible," Marcella Hazan's "Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking")? From a purely statistical standpoint, I guess I don't care about food all that much and I guess I don't really have that much interest in Italian food. All people like Craig, Bill, I and others can tell you is that, having spent time living and working (as opposed to touring) in Italy... it is just obvious that people over there care more about food. You and I care a lot about food and so naturally when we are spending time together in New York we often talk about food. To many (most?) "regular" New Yorkers we would seem to be unusually food-obsessed. Clearly, our interest in food is not the same as the "average American." But, in Italy I have conversations with "regular people" about food every day. These are not people who are regarded as caring about food all that much.

I hear what you're saying, Jaymes. I hope we can say that interesting points have been made all around, with perhaps more on the way. If I might interject a little bit of metadiscusion here, I think that inferences of disparagement or tone may have been made by several parties where none was intended. Believe me, I know what this is like as there are no doubt several people on these boards who would find issue with your characterization of me as a thoughtful and non-judgmental, even though I do not go out of my way to piss people off. Perhaps we might put those things aside for the time being and go back to a more elevated level of discourse.

I think it depends on what exactly you are talking about. I would assert that the average Italian, if you consider simply the quality of the food consumed irrespective of regional style or recipe, does in fact eat better than the average American. By and large, the ingredients are of a higher quality and by and large more care and pride are taken in the preparation of those ingredients. So, strictly in that sense, the average Italian does eat better. That said, 95% of the food an Italian eats is "Italian food." More specifically, if he lives in Rome, 80 - 90% of the food he eats is "Roman food." I don't think you'll find the average SC resident eating barbeque 5 times a week, or the average MA resident eating fresh-caught fish 5 times a week. Certainly this is true. But, more to the point, the average Italian doesn't eat BBQ brisket -- if he does, it is largely as a novelty. Craig makes an excellent point when he says that Italians, by and large, don't bother trying to make and sell crappy barbeque or gumbo if they can't do it well. That's hard to say about the crayfish. It's not something that I've ever heard of people eating in Italy. But I think you're confusing ingredients with preparations. I have little doubt that I could make perfectly good gambero d'acqua dolce soffocato in Italy -- especially considering the fact that most peope in LA are using frozen Chinese crayfish tails to make theirs anyway. By the way, cioppino is an American dish you won't find in Italy. Yes, there are many excellent regional foods in America. I don't think anyone is suggesting that there aren't. I don't quite understand why you think that the discussion in this thread has furthered the idea that "everything 'European' is always and necessarily better than everything 'American.'" That said, I don't think it makes sense to stick one's head in the sand in cases where it is true. I don't think there is any denying, for example, that the average Italian cares more about his national and regional food culture and in general eats better quality food than the average American. I would also assert that the average Italian avails himself of his region's culinary specialties more frequently than the average American. It is certainly not the case that people like Bill, Craig and myself are America-haters when it comes to food. Indeed, I have freqently asserted that New York is one of the top restaurant cities in the world. But, the difference between the average American and the average Italian with respect to food is something that is absolutely self evident to anyone who has spent a significant amount of time living in both countries.

I don't think it is absolutely a question of whether restaurants ultimately have access to these ingredients. It is whether they are actually purchasing these ingredients, whether their customers can afford them, how ubiquitous they are, and how important these things are to their customers. I have plenty of friends who run local trattorie and osterie in small Italian towns. They are always out there foraging for asparagi selvatici, or procuring the first fresh porcini, etc. Why? Because their customers want these things, and eating these products is important to their customers. How many little local Italian joints in America do things like this? Practically none. The fact that has to be mentioned when we are asking "why aren't there more good Italian-style restaurants in America" is that there are, in actuality, very few Italian-style restaurants in America. Italian-American restaurants outnumber Italian-Italian restaurants by something like a million to one, if not more.

i know *where* to get them. but they're not in the 20 supermarkets that are closer to my house. jaymes points out that her supermarket does have them. i don't think we have any conclusion based on this other than you can get them some places, and other places you cannot. i'm betting the latter is more the case over the country as a whole. I'm betting you're right.

You know, of all the ways people can say they don't like a certain food, I always like yours best.

it should be noted that it's not very easy finding canned san marzano tomatoes in northern NJ even. the supermarkets carry 20 brands, none of which are san marzano. so yeah, i end up eating second-rate canned tomatoes most of the time. Eh... I wouldn't say that they're necessarily second rate per se, just because they're not San Marzano. For example, those Muir Glen organic canned tomatoes are fairly ubiquitous, and they're damn good. They don't taste the same as San Marzano tomatoes, but I think they taste just as good. Even those Pomì tomatoes from Parmalat aren't bad.

I love tripe. I had a special of tripa alla parmigiana at Babbo once that was one of the best dishes of any kind I've ever had.

Yes. And we can get these tomatoes here in the US (although it is no doubt harder to find a tin of San Marzano tomatoes in Nebraska than it is in New York City). Many Italians also grow their own tomatoes which they jar themselves (either whole or in puree). This is a much more common activity in Italy than it is in America. Another difference is the fact the most Italians won't eat or cook with out-of-season fresh tomatoes. Right! That's an illustration of the exact point I have been making. Most Americans expect a meat sauce for pasta to be tomatoey. As a result, the restauranteur offers a "bolognese" sauce that is not a bolognese sauce at all. Most Americans also tend to eat a rich meat sauce like this with dry pasta as opposed to fresh (which seems strange to me, and would to most Italians).

There are several things here: 1. Although the wheat to make the pasta is being imported, the production is taking place in Italy. At the mass-production level, it it quite clear to me that the Italian producers make a markedly superior product than the North American producers. 2. Beyond that, it is a fact that Italians care more about the quality of the pasta they are eating and care more that the pasta be prepared correctly. 3. Those two things aside, it is certainly true that one can use imported Italian pasta, imported San Marzano tomatoes and imported Italian olive oil to make a dish that tastes virtually the same as it would in Italy. 4. So, why is it the case that pasta dishes like this in America often don't taste the same? First, take a look at #2 above, which drastically increases the porobability that the pasta will come to the table at something other than peak done-ness. Second, as I have been saying before, one has to understand that Italian restaurants in America have to cater to American tastes to a certain degree if they want to make money. This means several things: A) it will likely be a much bigger portion of pasta; B) the pasta will usually have much more sauce; C) there is a significant probability that the pasta will be a "piatto integrato" containing significant emounts of protein, rather than being a simple primo. 5. #3 above notwithstanding, the majority of Italian pasta dishes are difficult to precisely replicate in the States because of issues having to do with ingredients. This doesn't strike me as too difficult to understand. It would be difficult to make pasta con le sarde in Milano that tasted like it does in Sicilia. I think there are two separate issues here that are getting confused here. The first question is "why can't we make Italian food here that tastes exactly the same as it does in Italy?" To my mind, the clear answer is ingredients. The second question is "why don't we usually find Italian food here that tastes as good as it does in Italy?" That's a more complicated question, and while I think ingredients play a part, there are several other factors involved having to do with the cultural importance of food, regional preferences, etc.

The best durum wheat is grown in North America in the largest volumes, and I think >80% of Italian-made pasta asciutta is made with North American wheat.

Exactly. When I think "connaisseur of fine liquors," the name Ron Jeremy immediately springs to mind.

Heh. And "stinco di asino" is even funnier, when you think about it.

This, I think, is a statement that begins to get back on track towards the heart of the matter. The fact is that, in terms of what is available to the average consumer, ingredients in Italy tend to be better than the ingredients in America. The fact of the matter, which is readily apparent to anyone with familiarity with the two cultures, is that food is simply much more important to the average Italian than it is to the average American. I don't think that anyone who has spend significant time in Italy, particularly in a capacity other than as a tourist, could argue that this is not the case. Food, and specifically a pride in the qualoty of local ingredients, is one of the most important aspects of being Italian to an Italian. There are many things that are important to Americans about being American, but great food and local food traditions would have to be pretty low on the list. Whereas an average Italian would refuse to buy second-rate fish, and would rather go without, an average American will buy the second-rate fish because it's the best they can get and they want to have fish. This fact is illustrated in a number of Jaymes' arguments and is a fundamental difference between the Italian outlook and the American outlook. As I have said before, I think a certain amount of this is due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to eat truly regionally in America (as nicely illustrated by jwagnerdsm's project to eat "only Iowa" for a year. As a result, I think it is the case that a very large percentage of Americans have never eaten any truly first-rate ingredients. The percentage of Americans who shop at farmers markets, or who pay twice as much to eat organic, free range eggs is truly minute. Even assuming that every American has eaten a truly pristene, vine-ripened tomato at its very peak... it's pretty clear that eating this kid of thing on a daily basis is not of primary importance to most Americans. So... this is one aspect of the question "why doesn't Italian food taste the same in America?" At the average neighborhood restaurant level, it is quite clear that the Italian establishments in general use better ingredients. So, they don't taste the same because the ingredients here are not as good. This is also due to the fact that the average Italian restaurant in America is expected to offer, say, fried calamari and linguini with clam sauce regardless of whether there are any fresh calamari available or whether any nice fresh clams have come in. At the highest levels, I think the difference is more a matter that the food tastes different (although perhaps not inferior) because 1) locally-sourced foods taste different depending on the source; and 2) Italian restaurants in America have to cater to American preferences and customs to make money.

Did you really?! You are the only other American I know, besides me, who has eaten asino. What did you think? Personally, I could live without it.

I believe I said "as good or better." I would certainly be willing, however, to put the tomatoes from Tim Stark of Eckerton Hills Farm, in Hamburg, PA, up against against any in the world. The vine ripened heirloom tomatoes I get at the Union Square Green Market in season are markedly better than any I have found in similar Italian markets.

Parmigiana di melanzane - real Italian food?? Not where we live! Do we need to talk about regional Italian cuisines? You know about regional Italian cuisines. Melanzana alla parmegiana wasn't being served at that trattoria for visitors from New Jersey or Staten Island. Parmigiana di Melanzane is in my handy DeAgostino "Ricette Regionali Italiane" as traditionally coming from Campania, FWIW. I have a feeling that "Melanzane alla Parmigiana" is an American construction.

I agree that the "regular" eggs in Italy are in general better than they are here. The eggs I buy at the Green Market, though, are totally organic, free range, etc. and yet I still can't make pasta fresca that tastes like it does when I make it in Italy. This is part of my point that Italian cooking, in general, heavily relies on the inherrent properties of the ingredients and it is therefore impossible to duplicate the Italian flavors and textures with American ingredients -- no matter how good the American products may be. Certainly it is the case that many Italian products are generally a lot better than they are in the US. And it is also the case that certain American products are generally a lot better than they are in Italy. On the whole, though, I agree that this equation is balanced in favor of Italy. That said, I think a lot of it has to do with geology. There is simply no way someone living in Nebraska is going to have access to the same diversity and quality of local ingredients someone living in, say, Lazio can have.

Oh, if only that were true... It's an unfortunately wide stream all too often. Points well made, BTW, Suzanne.

Yes, perhaps we have gone a little off on tangent here. Certainly there doesn't need to be any more exploration of cookware nomenclature on this thread -- even if it is fun. That said, I think that issues of versatility and price are certainly germane to this topic.

Cool. I bet it works really well for this. Esp for one-hand tossing. As cookware is a major interest of mine, I have made a habit of acquiring, testing and comparing most of the interesting brands of cookware available. I've also, as I think my eGCI class shows, gone to some lengths to understand the materials science behind why different cookware performs in different ways. I wouldn't say that my experience is absolutely definitive -- because not everyone may have the same preferences and criteria for performance that I have, which is a point I believe I made in my previous post -- but I will suggest that I know what I am talking about and have taken some trouble to make myself informed on this subject. As for the "worst offender," I thought I was fairly clear when I said "All-Clad, in my experience, is the worst offender in the business when it comes to overpriced cookware." That evaluation is based on an understanding of the materials used by All-Clad (i.e., how much of which thermal material you get) and comparing their prices to those of other manufacturers offering similar or better materials specifications. It's as simple as that. For example, I can compare a $190 ($127 for a factory second) 10.5 inch All-Clad sauté pan with 253.8 cm^3 of aluminum (113.4 in the base and 140.4 in the sides) to a $68 11 inch Sitram Profiserie sauté pan with 253.8 cm^3 of aluminum (all in the base). Understanding materials science and the sautéing process, there is no argument that may be made whereby the more expensive All-Clad pan is worth an additional 88% to 175% more on a "performance at a price" basis. My own experience -- albeit not definitive -- with both of these items confirms that prediction. Similar price disparities may be found across the board with respect to All-Clad's prices. To my mind, that constitutes egregious overpricing and makes All-Clad the worst offender when it comes to overpriced cookware. Others may feel differently. I have had conversations with people who have told me it was worth double the price to be able to throw All-Clad stainless pans in the dishwasher. That's cool. But it still won't change my opinion about their prices when it comes to performance. We can disagree on the naming thing too... that's fine with me and off topic for this thread anyway. Now, if I may put on my moderation hat for a brief moment... I don't think I have made any personal remarks about you -- whether you are being "disingenuous," "pretentious" or otherwise -- and would suggest that such characterizations don't have a place in discussion here.

Ah... you mean this thing. I used to have that pan, but somehow I thought they called it a wok. I stand corrected. It must be someone else who calls their curved sauteuse evasée a "chef's pan." Anyway, All-Clad's chef's pan is basically a flat-bottomed wok in clad aluminum with a handle. Fundamentally, it differs from a curved sauteuse evasée mainly by having a smaller flat cooking surface and more gradually curved sides. I am not sure this represents an improvement in either functionality or versatility. In terms of absorbing heat and conducting it to the food in a stir-frying situation, it has all the problems of the standard wok I described above when used over a normal heat source -- albeit somewhat better due to having an aluminum layer. It still proved, in my experience, to be less than satisfactory for stir frying on a residential stove. I found the larger flat cooking surface on my curved sauteuse evasée conferred significantly more versatility (indeed, I believe this is the most versatile pan in any kitchen) and eventually got rid of the All-Clad wok-ish Chef's Pan. This is not to say, of course, that some people wouldn't find it useful depending on their cooking style and practices. What do you use this pan for, other than stir-frying (or even incuding stir-frying), that you think it does better than you might be able to do using a large sauté pan with a triple-thick alumimum base? And, if one is considering budget, how do you think this functionality makes it worth an additional 75% to 150% compared to the sauté pan? I think it makes sense to call a pan by whatever happens to be its proper and most generally accepted name. That's why I say "chinois" and not "fine mesh conical strainer." The practice by which all the different manufacturers call their pans by different, and often contradictory names leads to too much confusion in my opinion (e.g., Calphalon's "omelette pan," which is really a fry pan and not an omelette pan at all). But, as they say: de gustibus non disputandum est.

I don't think anyone can make the argument that Italy or any European country has demonstrably better produce and other ingredients than those in the United States. Indeed, certain products (beef and wheat immediately come to mind) are considered the best in the world. What one can say is that they are often distinctively different. For example, I don't think it is possible to get better eggs anywhere in the world than the just-laid organic eggs I get at the Union Square Green Market every Saturday morning. That said, they don't have those deep golden yolks that Italian eggs have. Does that make the Italian eggs "better?" No, it doesn't. In fact, most such eggs I have bought in Italy were demonstrably inferior to the eggs I get at the USGM. However, the fact remains that even using better American eggs, I will still not be able to replicate the egg yolk pasta fresca I make in Italy. Similarly, I don't think the tomatoes I have had in Italy were demonstrably better than those I get here in season. But, it is also a fact that a sauce made with top quality heirloom tomatoes from Jersey won't taste the same as one made with tomatoes from San Marzano. This, in my opinion, is the major difference and goes a long way towards explaining why it is difficult to make "tastes like Italy" food in America. I think it is also often the case that Italians have access to fresher, more local ingredients than we do in the States. This is due to the huge geological diversity found in Italy over relatively small distances. Someone living on the coast of Abruzzo can have mountain-grown/caught/etc. products at his local market that didn't have to travel very far to get there. In the United States, on the other hand, we have have a huge ancient flood plain in the middle of the country that is relatively homogenous from a geological (and therefore agricultural) standpoint. Agriculture in the US, due to the fact that our geology tends to change over much larger distances, tends to be macroregional rather than microregional. One result of this is the fact that a significant percentage of American produce comes from far away. For example, in Italy, practically every area grows artichokes, whereas almost all the artichokes in the States are grown in on the West coast. So, there is just no way a New York restaurant can get artichokes as fresh and in such pristine condition as most any trattoria does in Italy.