Signature Dish

[bleudauvergne]

In following the Dishes that Passed the Test of Time thread, I was curious about mentions of sorrel and fish.

The first time I had oseille (sorrel) was here in France, when I ran across it in recipes, mainly soups, and saw it at the market. My instinct at first taste told me to stuff a wild sea bass with it, and I assumed that it must be a classic combination, it was a natural match. It's also fabulous rolled in a sole fillet with a little farm butter and fleur de sel... I then discover that the seabass sorrel is "signature dish" of someone. And someone else has the "signature dish" of sorrel and salmon.

I have questions about the "signature dish" in general.

1) How is a "signature dish" defined? Is it the exact way a dish is presented by the chef, the exact result on the plate that makes it the signature dish? (I notice that people have lamented changes in color of certain signature dishes from one visit to another); i.e. not just a part of a chef's repetoire but somehow consistently presented with a certain unique something that makes it the consistent "signature" of a chef?

2) What rights (legal or ethical) does a chef hold (by his own claim or the general opinion of the public) over a "signature dish"? For example I have seen threads on these boards where a chef was criticized for serving something similar to a signature dish of another restaurant without giving credit.

Thank you for your insights on any of the above questions.

[DRColby]

Whenever we go to a restaurant I ask the waiter what their signature dish is. Generally, in the the US, the lame answer will be "they all are."

To me the signature dish is this: I think of sorrel and Spring salmon as a natural, also very French. To me to claim it as a "signature dish" would be to have this made with the very best ingredients and the closest attention paid to the preparation. In other words perfection of the recipe, unique or not. It certainly isn't my "signature dish" because I can't come close to to approximating what a top chef has done with the right ingredients.

Signature dish: No patients, no naming exclusive, just excellence in preparation and memorable.

dave

[robert brown]

A chef doesn't always set out to make a signature dish, though he may hope it becomes one. My guess is that he hears from clients how wonderful the dish is and that they hope he or she will keep it around. Also the reviewers, writers or guidebooks discover it and then the dish achieves notoriety and is copied or adapted by other chefs. Most chefs, I believe, tend not to change the dish, but there are exceptions such the Michel Guerard caviar and scambled eggs one. Or, as we saw with the Troisgors salmon with sorrel, the next generation changes it perhaps to conform more to the younger taste.

[Bux]

A chef doesn't always set out to make a signature dish, though he may hope it becomes one.

←

I think we may even find the opposite sometimes wherein the chef wishes he could abandon his "signature dish." To depart just a bit from France, although not from French chefs or French cuisine, I'd use Daniel Boulud's "Crisp Paupiette of Sea Bass in a Barolo Sauce," which has also been featured in a Syrah sauce but that's a minor variation. It's oddly a signature dish because first of all, as Daniel notes, the recipe was inspired by the work of another chef. "Paul Bocuse's Rouget en Écailles de Pomme de Terre inspired this exquisite dish of tender fish fillets wrapped in a crisp crust of sliced potatoes," says Daniel. More interesting in terms of this discussion is that I've read of Daniel complaining in a newspaper article about wanting to take the dish off the menu because he's tired of serving it and his staff is tired of cooking it, but that his customers demand it be available. Of course I would imagine this is a "complaint" most chefs would love to make and he was not so much complaining to the press as he was bragging about his accomplishment, but I think he's correct in that cooking has moved beyond mere craft. Chefs and cusiniers today, look to make their daily work more intellectually stimulating and long to vary what they produce.

The dish was originally created for le Cirque and Barolo was used in honor of the Italian owner at le Cirque. That may be why I've also seen it served with Syrah sauce in honor of Daniel's own Lyonnais roots. My guess is that chefs of a certain age don't look to alter their signature dish looking to Escoffier's classic codification of cuisine, while younger chefs look to create new dishes every year, if not more often. Their role models may be the artist in his studio or perhaps the fashion designer. If may seem to a older diner as if we're experiencing the sort of forced obsoletion we see in the manufacture of automobiles and appliances. Patrons don't go back to a three star restaurant for the meal they enjoyed last year, but to taste the new models, although the restrospective Adria gave himself at El Bulli a couple of years ago might point more to the painter or sculptor as role model.

A chef has almost no rights to his culinary creations other than to copyright the exact text of his recipe. Alter the wording of the recipe without changing the preparation and you're safe. While you can't legally display a photograph of the original chef's dish to advertise your restaurant, you can serve as indentical a preparation as you can achieve. Troisgros' salmon with sorrel sauce was a classic served in many French restaurants. André Daugain's magret de canard has become a staple of restaurants across Europe and the US. He was the first to serve duck breast cooked rare as a steak, but it's been adopted and adapted by almost every chef in the world. Few chefs even bother to honor the chef who inspired their adaptation.

[bleudauvergne]

A chef has almost no rights to his culinary creations other than to copyright the exact text of his recipe. Alter the wording of the recipe without changing the preparation and you're safe. While you can't legally display a photograph of the original chef's dish to advertise your restaurant, you can serve as indentical a preparation as you can achieve. Troisgros' salmon with sorrel sauce was a classic served in many French restaurants. André Daugain's magret de canard has become a staple of restaurants across Europe and the US. He was the first to serve duck breast cooked rare as a steak, but it's been adopted and adapted by almost every chef in the world. Few chefs even bother to honor the chef who inspired their adaptation.

←

Then this phenomenon of chefs claiming rights over dishes if is a myth? I have seen this mentioned Here. In fact there are several lines of discussion in this thread that indicate the general belief that being the first to serve a dish or publish a recipe means that it is stamped with your "signature". I refer also to Nutcake's recollection of a conversation with chef George Morrone:

... it was his signature fois gras tuna tower as well as was (is?) the very special ahi tartare, which he once told me he can't recreate because it was 'sold' to the restaurant. 

It seems as if there is some crossover of ideas.

In this thread, bourdain's mention of "signature" dishes is clearly understood as an indication of quality, and further discussed in that context. I saw that the word "signature" was questioned as if a criteria for that term could be determined by someone other than the chef.

Things are getting hazier. Hazy about whether "signature" means it is uniquely yours (as in intellectual property), an indication or label of high quality, or means that clientele are familiar with a dish particular to one restaurant and it is a fixture on the menu.

[Bux]

The beauty of the English language is in it's poetic application not in the writing of treaties where things are clearly understood. In English, words usually meant whatever their speaker wants them to mean.

I think Tony's use of the word in that post implies it's a dish he identifies with the chef because it's unique and because the excecution is unique. The one thing we know is that he finds the stamp of the maker in the dish.

While there is no copyright protection for the results of a recipe, there's nothing stopping a chef from claiming a dish is his signature or from others ascribing a dish to a chef and indentifying him with the dish, or the dish with him. Many an amateur chef might well claim his signature dish was one he has learned to cook perfectly, even if it's from some cookbook. If it's one he serves well and often to first time guest or repeated guests, it can said to be his signature. Why not?

The interesting thing about a Chef such as Daniel Boulud is that not only is he willing to credit another chef for the inspiration of his signature dish, but that after he left le Cirque, they continued to serve his recipes as their signature dishes.

On the other hand, there is the moral indigantion of the public and the press when one chef copies another's early recipe and says he developed it. The question here might be, "do you want to eat the original version of a dish or the best version if another chef has perfected the recipe beyond that of the original chef?"