The four-star dilemma

[Michael Ruhlman]

Certainly if you read any of Michael Ruhlman's cookbooks, which center on chefs like Thomas Keller and Eric Ripert,  it would seem that to a limited extent, if the home cook is commited enough, that they can compose a reasonable facsimile of certain dishes served at 4 star restaurants.

However, I think we all have to agree that its very difficult for the average person to get ahold of the kind of produce and foodstuffs that Per Se, Daniel, Jean Georges, ADNY or Le Bernardin get from their top end suppliers on a daily basis. Some of this stuff such as high end meats and seafood can be gotten from specialty mail-order purveyors by the consumer at exhorbitant cost. I certainly think that if you go to the local farmers markets in places like New York City, Seattle and San Francisco it is possible at various times of the year to get the very same top notch local produce the restaurants get, but its more of the luck of the draw type thing -- on any given day you might see some amazing tomatoes or mushrooms or greens, but you may not be able to exactly reproduce a dish at The French Laundry because they have all those crazy microgreens and what nots locked up that they fly in from all over the place, not just stuff they buy locally. The bottom line is, they have consistent access to stuff that just never ends up in the consumer food chain at any price. And these restaurants pay to the nose for it.

So the answer is, I think the accomplished home cook can get close, but you might not be able to reliably source the exact same things that top notch restaurants do on a normal basis.

←

Jason called my attention to this forum a long time ago but I've been awol. sorry. I have a couple comments. Above all, yes, a committed home cook can produce a meal reasonably close to those of the four-stars. Cooking is fundamentally a craft (almost never never never an art), and crafts can be taught. And good ingredients are out there and available to the hoi polloi. foie gras is a great example--the foie available to home cooks is the same stuff that Keller and Ripert et al use. Here in Cleveland I can run out to the store and buy kobe beef. Then again, one of the reasons for going to a four star is precisely to enjoy those very special products unavailable to the home cook: white truffles, masa's amazing mackeral, fresh hearts of palm. that's their reason for being.

Also, what really makes a four-star experience is as much the service than the food.

What no one has mentioned here is the fact that one of the things that allows a professional cook to achieve the sublime is sheer dumb repetition, the making of a dish over and over and over, growing ever more perceptive of its nuances. That above all is what separates the professional cook from the home cook.

[Dani Mc]

I object to the use of the term '4 star'. I think overusing it dillutes its power and should be reserved for the people who rightly deserve it. I'm not saying its not possible to create a high end meal at home, I just think that its a fallacy to suggest that level of experience can be replicated in a home kitchen by someone other than a complete master at his craft. Sure, the ingredients are available, but thats only one part of the equation. What about the tools and the staff these chef's have available to them? As suggested above, what about the perfection that only comes from doing the SAME thing dozens of times a day, every day?

High end...absolutely. Four Star...no.

Reminds me of a similar arguement I have with fellow designers about the use of the word 'Couture'. Another word signifying unparalleled excellence of a master craftsman as determined by his peers that is often used too freely (and more often than not...incorrectly).

[MobyP]

Much of it has to do with expectations, surely. There are few things so wonderful as showing up to someone's house and have them place something exquisite before you. When you go to a high-end place, you have high-end expectations - and woe betide they're not met.

[PCL]

There seems a fundamental focus on status here. I may be wrong, but that is but a perception. A little guy a lot of us loved in Paris, Yves Camdebord, thanks in no small part to Steingarten's book, was turning out AMAZING FUCKING MEALS for a pittance.

Who really cares about ambience, sure La Regalade had it due to it simply being French, but swinging a corporate Amex around may be a penis enhancer/virtual boob job for some, but really, it comes down to what you're going to put in your gob no?

A good veal stock can be made at home after you've made friends with your butcher, tended your herb garden and visited your farmer's market.

The rest, as Michael Ruhlman says, is just dumb repetition and a lot of heart.

Like, I went out finally to one of the most raved about places in my little town, 13 courses, quail egg turned up in 3 of the courses. I took it up with them. They didn't cook out the alcohol in a crayfish sauce. I took it up with them. They didn't even mount it.

The point? I cooked a little on the line. I can tell when someone's faking it. I can tell when someone's trying hard, too hard even. And I can tell when someone's honest. Like someone once said <smirk>, some people cook like they've never been fucked good. Happily, a lot of us get/do it good and cook well too.

Eating out in NYC, for a small town boy like me, was sometimes a chore.

[russ parsons]

like michael, i'm late to this thread. but it is something i've thought about a lot, so i hope i'm not TOO late.

i do believe a very talented, very practiced, very dedicated home cook can create food that is at the level of a 4-star restaurant (by 4-star, i'm talking about the level of a french laundry/charlie trotter/citronelle). it would take a lot of time and a lot of expense, but it could be done.

for me, the bigger question is: SHOULD it be done? believe me, i've sat through some of these meals ... the ones where the host greets you at the door in a chef's jacket. with rare exception, they are just no fun. the cook has put so much into preparing the meal that no amount of praise could possibly justify it. so when they are not in the kitchen sweating, they are at the table sulking.

and the pressure on the guests is tremendous. first, they have to perform the social functions of the host (the host being indisposed) and then they have to somehow try to generate enough enthusiasm to bring the host out of their mope--almost always an impossible task.

I usually leave these dinners feeling like i've worked hard for my food--not the way I want guests to feel when they are in my home. these dinners seem to me to be primarily for the cook, not the guest, which is more than a little perverse. it's a matter of showing off, not sharing, which is what home cooking is about.

it also seems to be rooted in an inferiority complex that i don't think is warranted. there are so many things that home cooks can do that great restaurants can't--supply a real luxury of ingredients (we have no accountants to report to), pour great wines (same), provide a genuinely warm environment, spark great conversations, and many others.

the thing is, we can do those things as easily over a great leg of lamb and some farmers market vegetables as we can with some precious little creation that we labored over for 2 days. and by doing that, we can make sure that our guests are having a good time.

this is not something that is lost on the pros. almost without exception, when i've eaten at a great chef's house, that's the kind of food they serve. they respect the place of great home cooking, and so should we.

[slkinsey]

I'm with Russ on this one. As detailed here, I just spent around ten days of preparation and hard work to produce what I suppose I'd call a solid two-star multicourse Thanksgiving dinner for 11 people. I wouldn't want to do any more work than that, and it pushed the envelope of what my kitchen can do to the absolute limit. Four star Keller/Ducasse/Trotter food from my kitchen? Maybe theoretically possible, but why?

Actually, I think it's almost impossible. Think of all the pieces that have to fall in place:

1. Are you a four star caliber cook? Do you think you can tell when a sauce is absolutely perfect the way Delouvrier can?

2. Are you going to be doing all the cooking and plating? If so, that's a limitation. If not, are your various assistants up to the four star level? It's quite common that several people will work on one plate at the four star level.

3. Related to the above, do you have the experience and the personnel to get everything plated and out to the diners in peak condition?

2. What about sourcing the ingredients?

3. How's your stove? Only four burners? That's a limitation.

4. No salamander? That's a limitation.

5. Only one oven (or only two)? That's a limitation.

6. How about things like keeping the plates warm, etc. How are you going to manage that?

7. etc.

The further one gets into this list, the more one understands that four star cuisine is designed to be made by people with extensive, expensive and often specialized equipment being used by plentiful and highly trained personnel. Is it theoretically possible to do this in a home kitchen? Sure, I guess... if you have an eight burner Garland stove, three ovens, a salamander, a battery of top level cookware, and a zillion kinds of dishes... and, oh yea, provided you are a really accomplished cook and have several other accomplished cooks helping you. But I doubt very much that Alain Ducasse himself would be able to produce "four star cuisine" in my NYC apartment kitchen (despite the fact that everything but my stove is very high end) without an absolutely Herculean and ultimately Pyrrhic effort.

[MichaelB]

I'l chime in agreeing with Russ on this one too. I used to be one of those people who worked all day long to put out a fancy meal for guests. It really was no fun; and I am sure it wasn't that enjoyable for the guests.

Fortunately, my skills have improved and maybe my ego has shrunk a bit. I now refuse to enter the kitchen earlier than 2 1/2 hours before guests arrive. Also, no course can take longer than 10 minutes to pick up and plate. It's a dinner *party*; and I am not the paid help.

That said, in any 5 or 6 course meal that I do, one or two will be "4 star quality." Every one has the potential to be so; I just cannot predict which it will be. With just one pair of hands, it is more or less a matter of luck that I get the meat to the prefect temperature, the vegetables done and seasoned perfectly, the sauce not over reduced, etc. all at the same time -- oh, and make sure everyone at the table has wine, the correct silver got placed, the plates from the last course are rinsed and stacked out of my way. I know how to do all these things; I know exactly what is wrong with every plate I put out -- it is simply impossible for one person with one pair of hands to get it right every time in that setting. Did I also mention that I would have several glasses of wines consumed by course 4 or 5.

I also don't sweat that every course isn't quite to the standards of Per Se. The meal is free to my guests. They are there to enjoy the company of others. The food and wine is just lubricates the occasion.

[jglazer75]

This topic seems to me to be a bit of the age-old non-sequitur: "What is art?" In this case the question is "What do you consider 'four star cooking'?"

I think there are a couple ways to approach this question:

One is the most literal sense: four Michelin (sp?) stars. Not many of us will ever EAT at one of these restaurants let alone prepare food well enough to be at one. However, there is a certain, for lack of a better word 'pretentiousness' that is necessarily attendant to such food. In most (all?) cases it is haute cuisine that would leave most Americans wondering where the other half of the meal went. And in MANY cases a diner may not even know how to EAT the item, let alone what is in it, how it is prepared, etc. I would venture to say that 98% of anyone cooking at home is not looking to prepare this type of food and wouldn't even consider this 'four star' because it is so far removed from a 'home' dining experience. Moreover, the criteria for judging this is much objective; is it good? is it creative? how does each course pair with each other? blah, blah, blah... For the most part, why would you WANT to create this food at home? Part of what engenders a four-star rating is service and atmosphere that I can't provide in my two bedroom apartment.

Second is a more general sense: four star meaning a very good 'normal' restaurant. You know, one of those places where I have to make a reservation, and probably wear a tie, but I won't have to guess at the best manner of getting the food into my belly. Most Americans have a general sense of what 'very good' food is even if they may not think the cost of such food is justified. In this sense of the phrase 'four star' is more approachable because the criteria becomes very subjective; is this better than what I would pay for at a very good restaurant. The subjectivity takes on a sense of value: I only paid $15 for this meal that I would have paid $80 for at a 'very good' restaurant and it is 'almost' as good as I would get there, therefore I cooked a 'three star' meal.

Personally, I fall into the second category. I couldn't make, but nor do I have any interest in making, the same food that Grant Aschutz produced at Trio. On the other hand, I've been to Coco Pazzo in Chicago (rated 3 stars by the Tribune - considered a 'very good' normal restaurant) and you know what? I've made better food at home.

edit: sp

Edited December 3, 2004 by jglazer75 (log)

[MarketStEl]

But like Tommy, I think wine is nescessary for the four-star meal. That's just one reason why Sri shouldn't have been reviewed in the primary column.

←

For a period of about two years, up until very recently, I was a teetotaler--trying to avoid following my father's downward spiral into deep depression. Giving up booze turned out to be beneficial for me, and I now feel I can drink again in moderation.

But are you telling me and people like me that we could not possibly enjoy superlative food without wine?

[melkor]

But are you telling me and people like me that we could not possibly enjoy superlative food without wine?

←

I think a case can be made that good food and good wine together make each other taste better. Not that you can't enjoy good food without good wine, that is clearly not true - but I do think the whole experience can be improved (for some) with the right wine.

[MelissaH]

This thread brings to mind an article by Mark Bittman that originally appeared in the NY Times, was republished in Best Food Writing 2002, and I just now found on the Web, if you can get past the horrible font and background that make it difficult to read. The gist of the article is that restaurant cooking is a totally different beast (excuse the expression) from home cooking in every aspect, from ingredients to equipment to manpower to time allotted to general mindframe of the person doing the cooking. Bittman closes the article with a few tricks the home chef can try to make their food more restaurant-like...including the use of more butter. Julia would applaud.

MelissaH

[kellytree]

Every day - no problem and I dont think it requires a lot of money - It doesnt require a lot of time either - that is if you manage your time well. ... as in while your cooking put another pot on the fire and instead of dumping your carrot peels chuck them in the pot and make a stock.

4 star food doesnt have to be fancy with lots of strange ingredients. 4 star meals dont have to be 5 billion courses (for me).

Having a garden helps. A lot.

Creativity is a must..... especially if you lack the funds.

Once again my own personal opinion is that its all about bringing out the best quality and flavor out in a food.

Slice up a homegrown tomato - drizzle with a good quality olive oil - a sprinkle of salt and if you want to get crazy a leaf or two of fresh picked basil - if you are feeling really crazy (or rich) slice up some quality mozzerella.

Its a 5 star plate right there.

If you use your resources than it's really no problem.

Lots of recipes I wouldnt even attempt to do at home - whats the point? - by the end of the cooking session I would probably be sick to my stomach over all the stress and then not even enjoy it.

[slkinsey]

Slice up a homegrown tomato - drizzle with a good quality olive oil - a sprinkle of salt and if you want to get crazy a leaf or two of fresh picked basil - if you are feeling really crazy (or rich) slice up some quality mozzerella.

Its a 5 star plate right there.

See, this is where the whole question of "what is four star" food comes into play. In the context of this discussion, "four star" means "the kind of food as executed in the top-rated, fanciest and most expensive restaurants in the world." There is simply no way a four star restaurant would serve an insalata caprese. Or, if they did, it would be tweaked in some unique and fancy and complicated way. And it would involve specially grown and absolutely perfect heirloom tomatoes and microbasil. And the mozzarella would be life-changingly fresh, made in house from organic milk just out of the rare breed cow. That kind of thing. A tomato fresh from the garden with a drizzle of oil and a sprinkle of salt is delicious. But it's one star cuisine at best.

[Jinmyo]

I agree, Sam.

And the thing is, one star food is delicious.

No one should feel that there is something "wrong" with their preferences.

But there is a reason for trying to, however unsuccessfully, rank different styles and levels of cuisine. And that is to know what we are referring to.

[russ parsons]

exactly the way i feel sam and jinmyo. four-star does not mean "delicious". it means delicious plus perfection plus some level of astonishment. 90% of the time, i'm more than happy to settle for delicious (funnily enough, i did an event with thomas keller for the bouchon book and we talked about the difference between that and the laundry, and he pointed out that he eats at bouchon almost every night--and that even if he didn't own the place, he still would).

in fact, for dinner parties, i almost never plate individual servings anymore. i love platters, where people have to share and pass along.

[Chef Shogun]

Alright, how about this: how many 'stars' could the home cook reasonably strive for? Consider even a pathological case: a hitherto unknown prodigy at the stove, a kitchen straight out of a Bon Appetite Sub-Zero ad, some neighbor kid in a suit to escort diners to the bathroom, a wine collection built up over generations. That kind of thing. Do 'our' perceptions of a star-rated restaurant allow any stars at all for the ambitious, motivated home cook? The question seems flawed in that it is attempting to hold a home envrionment to the same standards as a restaurant.

Edit to grumble: Darn students have me so tied up today everybody made the points I was about to make! Classes are over! Go home!!

Edited December 3, 2004 by Chef Shogun (log)

[SobaAddict70]

My wife and I co-cooked for a little group of ten this weekend so I can finally contribute to this thread.  We spent much more time painting, creating, decorating and readying the condo than on the food and wine, but most of the plates were "cleaned" so it must have been at least tolerable.  Colleen took the lead on the apps, I chose all the wines, then took the lead on the first three courses, then Colleen handled the two meat courses, then I did the pre-dessert and she handled the main dessert and all petit fours. The menu, all in small tasting portions:

Pre-meal munchies while sitting around sipping wine: Olives (virtually ignored--we'll be eating olives for months); Prosciutto-wrapped melon cubes on toothpicks; Watermelon balls and cherry tomato halves with olive oil, sea salt and basil in Vietnamese soup spoons.  We didn't want to worry about these, but sit and talk.

Wines:  2000 Navarro White Riesling; 2001 Chehalem Pinot Gris; 2001 Les domaines Grassa SARL Lalande Sauvignon; 2000 Bridgman Yakima Valley Viognier.

Gazpacho--served in a square white bowl--first in the bowl a confetti dice of red, yellow and green pepper, shallot and cucumber floating in clear tomato water, then some shavings of carrot, then a layer of pink gazpacho foam was applied (400 ml gazpacho seasoned, whizzed, strained with a little cream and a sheet of gelatin, added to the iSi Profi whipper) then on top of the foam a yellow and red cherry tomato half, chiffonade of basil, sea salt and a spritz of sherry vinegar and olive oil.  This was all prepped ahead and just had to be plated.

Wine: Gruner Veltliner (I forget which.)

Apple/Curry/Mussel soup--served cool to room temperature in shallow clear glass bowl, sprinkled in first a fine dice of apple (Fuji, sweet) then a quenelle of creme fraiche in the center, then 5 cold steamed mussels piled on top of the creme, then the "more yellow than orange" curry mussel cream poured in the bowl (white wine, cream, mussel and clam juice, shallots, ginger and curry powder--my blend, toasted whole and ground--heavy on the fennel and coriander seed--then strained), then a pinch of chopped chive and a few drops of curry infused grapeseed oil drizzled on the surface. This just had to be plated as well.

Wine: 2001 Lucien Albrecht Alsace Gewruztraminer

(Colleen had cleared out our small kitchen of extraneous stuff, like sheetpans, the toaster oven, pots and pans, bowls, anything we didn't need--and then stacked all the dishes, glassware, serveware we needed on the now free racks--and created space for my three courses--which I had all laid out on sheet trays, one for each course.)

Shrimp risotto--done in the microwave a la Barbara Kafka (so not to inordinately heat up the kitchen or require me to stand there stirring.) This was started during the gazpacho course and takes 35 minutes from start to finish.  Arborio, butter, oil, shrimp, shrimp stock, flat leaf parsley, leek, fennel, peas, asparagus, parmesan, salt and pepper.

(Fava beans were done ahead-- poached, skins removed, set aside.) Molded in a metal demisphere and inverted on plate, a few fava beans placed on top of each dome, a few drops of truffle oil on plate, a few drops of olive oil on plate, raw cauliflower grated on top (original idea Jose Andres.)

Wines: still the Gewurz

Duck confit in phyllo tartlettes, room temp, with jalapeno-corn relish on the side (white corn boiled, shaved off the cob with cilantro, shallot, red pepper and a vinaigrette)

Wines: 2000 Domaine de Coste Chaude Cotes du Rhone Villages, 2000 Chateau de Valcombe Costieres de Nimes

Grilled pork loin, Israeli cous-cous salad with dried cranberry and sun dried tomato, balsamic reduction with a frisee tossed in a different vinaigrette.

Pre-dessert--tangerine juice foam with lemon verbena syrup, with cherry halves, blueberries, red currants, grated pistachio.

Wine: 2001 Nivole Michele Chiarlo Moscato d'Asti 2001

Dessert--phyllo napoleon with thin layers of flourless chocolate cake, espresso creme brulee and caramel bavarian sprinkled with chocolate covered rice krispies.

Wine: 1996 Seppelt Rutherglen Show Tokay D.P. 57

Petits fours--little cubes of traditional Opera cake, a rose buttercream/cardamom ganache/pistachio jaconde Opera cake, assorted little molded chocolates.

Wine: Lustau Solera Reserva Pedro Ximenez "San Emilio"

A few additional notes--the pork loin (also all fruit, corn and frisee) came from the Arlington Farmer's market--and was larger than Colleen was used to--since the pigs were older.  (She had practiced with these loins a few times and all the previous ones were very small, called "fish tails" or fish loins I think.

The tangerine juice was from Fresh Fields/Whole Foods Market.  I was planning to do a peach foam from fresh peaches, but ran out of time.  All my seafood, vegetables came from Fresh Fields as well, didn't want to take the chance on the Farmer's market not having what I needed.  Plus, I needed to do a complete gazpacho for the foam the day before anyway.  The shrimp I chose, unbeknowngst to me at the time, had two veins--so I had to clean top and bottom--and for those who might want to know how I made the shrimp stock it was just the heads and shells of the shrimp, carrot and leek scraps, celery scraps, an onion half with a clove stuck in it, some wine, some clam juice, boiled for 20 minutes or so and strained.

←

I'd say this is about as close to four star cuisine in a home setting.

Soba

[Jinmyo]

Soba, SpecialK is, well, a special case.

He and chefette are incredibly skillful and inventive pastry chefs.

edit:

(I also note that the risotto was done in the microwave but I won't go down that dark path.)

Edited December 3, 2004 by Jinmyo (log)

[Jinmyo]

exactly the way i feel sam and jinmyo. four-star does not mean "delicious". it means delicious plus perfection plus some level of astonishment. 90% of the time, i'm more than happy to settle for delicious (funnily enough, i did an event with thomas keller for the bouchon book and we talked about the difference between that and the laundry, and he pointed out that he eats at bouchon almost every night--and that even if he didn't own the place, he still would).

in fact, for dinner parties, i almost never plate individual servings anymore. i love platters, where people have to share and pass along.

←

Russ, I'd eat at Bouchon every night too if I could.

The kind of food that chefs create for a "four-star" meal are part of a dining experience as a whole. The kind of food chefs and pro cooks want to eat tends to be, well, offal. Or roast chicken. Or steak frites. Or sushi and miso shiru. Or in bourdain's case the eyeballs of squirrels on toast.

I think it is possible and reasonable for home cooks to try to create elegant yet earthy two-star meals.

And perhaps the occasional three or four-star dish.

[russ parsons]

this thread brings up something that really bugs me and that i think is at the heart of a lot of what is wrong with american food today.

in almost every great cuisine in the world, home cooking is the foundation, followed by a certain kind of restaurant cooking and then at the tip of the pyramid, the great three-star (or four if you're in manhattan) experience, but only for the very occasional great meal. it does seem to me that too many food lovers in this country mistake the apex for the base.

i think you have to be able to be happy eating well and simply before you can fully appreciate what a thomas keller or michel richard can do. too many diners (and, certainly, chefs too!) never learn simplicity before they begin playing with complexity.

[Pan]

This topic seems to me to be a bit of the age-old non-sequitur: "What is art?" In this case the question is "What do you consider 'four star cooking'?"

I think there are a couple ways to approach this question:

One is the most literal sense: four Michelin (sp?) stars.

←

You got the spelling right, but that would be 3 stars. Michelin doesn't have a 4th star.

In most (all?) cases it is haute cuisine that would leave most Americans wondering where the other half of the meal went.

←

Have you ever been to a Michelin 3-star? I have, once so far, and I defy anyone of any nationality to feel hungry after eating the lunch I ate at Grand Vefour! So while some of your points are well taken, I think this one is pretty dubious.

[carp]

Oh, c'mon.  I have as big an ego as any home cook, anywhere, but to pretend that I can pull off a full meal -- not one course and some cheese, but a full meal -- as well as the handful of humans of the hundreds of thousands who devote their professional lives to cooking that earn 4 stars (3 in France) is beyond me even after a couple of glasses of wine and a good meal.  

This is like all the people who call into sports radio claiming to be better than the coach of their home team.  They're not, we're not.

Having played baseball professionally, the difference between cooking and sports (professionally) is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon because there are just some things you can't teach - like hitting or throwing a 95mph fastball.

In cooking, techniques can be taught, and creativity comes with time, talent and a keen mind. And these can improve over time. Maybe the difference over "better" and "creative" is just semantics. I've had meals cooked by home chefs that I would consider 4-star and also had meals that I would give a zero. If you're willing to put in the time, effort, creativity and money, I believe it can be done. Having a few connections in the food business wouldn't hurt either.

You don't think that great chefs have any innate talent that we don't? I don't want to go too far out on a limb, but the closer analogy would be an artist, rather than a baseball player (I chose coach as the comparison earlier, to avoid the physical considerations, btw). Two artists can have the same technical skills and same training, and yet one be much better than the other, because they have a greater innate talent. Same with chefs. Hundreds of people graduate from excellent cooking schools every years and the world's best kitchens are full of eager stagiers, learning from the masters. But some are just better than the others -- some are 4-star and some aren't -- because they have a talent that most people, even those who have already shown superior skill in their chosen profession, do not.

Add to that what gets learned from spending 10 hours a day, six days a week, for a period of years perfecting your craft, and home cooks just aren't in the same league.

Not, mind you, that we can't come close.

←

I completely agree with Busboy on this one. There is no way that I, or any number of other professional cooks, could do what Thomas Keller does at the French Laundry. It really can't be done. You can take a lot of lessons, be really talented, read lot's of books, go to school, cook every effin' day of your life, and maybe you'll pull off a Van Meegeren once in a while, but the masterwork still belongs to the masters.

[Jinmyo]

I don't really understand why a chef would want to run a four-star place, anyway.

Three or two are much more fun and the challenges have more to do with actual food than the linens and such.

As Russ said, home cooking is the foundation. All great cuisine originally comes from there.

Now, my Welsh/Italian mother's cooking in England during the fifties and sixties was one thing and my aunt's cooking in Normandy during the same timeframe was most sublimely quite another.

Compared to some home cooking other home cooking looks four-star. But it's not. It's good one or two or even three star stuff. (NYT stars, not Michelin three star.)

Being inspired by Keller is one thing. Learning how to incorporate the techniques another. Trying out some of the dishes yet another.

No one should ever beat themselves up for being Thomas Keller or any other great chef.

By the way, I'm glad to know that Keller has Bouchon to go to. I remember Michael R's story about Keller sitting in his day's whites outside The French Laundry eating a ham sandwich late at night before going home to a shower and bed.

[handmc]

I think Slkinsey nails it. The list he supplied is like watching a ship slip over the horizon. Ingredients are one thing, but the physical plant I have available to cook on will never compare to a professional kitchen. Keeping things warm while still trying to get everything out on time, ugh, if nothing else it will cause you to scrap menu plans a dozen times at least! Bye, Bye 4 four star meals, Bon Voyage.

I am not and never will be a 4 star chef. If had that kind of talent and didn’t use it to its full potential it would be a profound waste. I can say however that looking at some of the food porn on this site there is no question in my mind that there are some very serious amateurs out there.

I love to cook, for family, friends and once a year a huge blow out where I take 4 days off searching for ingredients, cooking, decorations, appropriate libations and music. Actually my wife handles the decorating along with the sister in law. The Luau was a real pain in the ass ingredient wise, but I found out I could fly in anything. Low country boil, that was a snap.

But 4 star meals? I may have some self esteem issues but I don’t think I would want to undergo the scrutiny the meals at Masa or Per Se come under by this crowd or any crowd for that matter. Good food, I can do that, 4 star meal, I’ll pass thanks. I’ll still rattle my pots and pans and feed those willing to come over. Occasionally, I’ll try to prepare some top quality food with top quality ingredients and have fun doing it. I don’t own a chef’s coat, and I don’t think I’m the sulking type, particularly when I’m cooking. However the thought someone might be silently thinking, “yikes when is this meal going to end” is truly mortifying.

This is an interesting topic, but more than a bit humbling and a little depressing when doing a self evaluation of your cooking skills and available equipment and whatever it means to prepare a 4 star meal. I am still not sure what that means.

[rosebud]

What thoughtful comments from everyone. It has never occurred to me to even try to come up with 4-star food at home. It's impossible not only for all reasons Sam mentioned (BTW, I bought a cauliflower and will try to make your soup this weekend, Sam!!! I have to come up with a course for a dinner in a couple of weeks with some foodies), but I simply lack the creativity gene that allows the very few to rise to the top. You know how somebody creates a dish that causes a buzz and it starts to show up on all the menus around town and then Bon Appetit and Gourmet publish recipes for it? I could never in a million years invent a dish like that. I'm still astounded at Sam's Thanksgiving menu and will merrily borrow whatever I can from him.

But Russ' first comments are more to the point. The ONLY reason to cook for others is to make sure they enjoy both the food and the company. And you have to understand your "audience" in order to do that. I don't know anyone in my life who would enjoy a meal under the circumstance he outlined. In fact, one of my elderly neighbors had Thanksgiving dinner with his nephew and family. Apparently, they prepared a meal on a par with Sam's and my neighbor didn't appreciate it one little bit! Too fussy and complicated. I save my best efforts for my husband, who does appreciate delicious food, and my foodie friends who share my interest. Everybody else thinks I'm a wonderful cook and look forward to my food. But, Hey, what do they know? I'd probably only qualify to mop Keller's floors, if that.

But the original question was whether it is possible to cook 4-star (whatever THAT means) meals at home. I think that's setting the bar too high and is discouraging because it is goal we simply can't reach as home cooks.