Cook or Chef?

[melkor]

Sure but that makes you both a cook and a personal chef. To call yourself 'chef' without qualifying it would be implying you were something you are not. A person who does exactly what you list for a wedding or other large party would be called a caterer. No one is going to hire a caterer to cook dinner for their family so people such as yourself use the term personal chef.

[MarketStEl]

Hmmmm.

Reading through this topic, it seems that the distinction between "chef" and "cook" is something on which we all agree, including the wiseacre who called himself "a horrible cook and consider myself a 'master chef'".

And actually, I think there is a workable definition for the former that even encompasses "personal chefs."

Put simply: A chef is a cook who also--or even primarily--manages a kitchen where other people are involved in the preparation and presentation of the food.

This is not precise enough, I realize, for the term could then describe me when I have someone helping me out with the prep work in my own kitchen. But it seems that the crucial distinction is that the chef has the ability to transmit his vision of a dish to others who then execute it, which is a managerial skill. (And what I have in mind is a little more complex--and a little more subtle--than simply writing down a recipe, which is also "transmitting a dish to others who [may] then [attempt to] execute it.")

[whatsup1]

To call yourself 'chef' without qualifying it would be implying you were something you are not.

I am at a loss to see where this comes from. According to Merriam Webster, a chef is the head of the kitchen; a skilled cook who manages a kitchen.

Can you point me to some authority to support what qualifications you believe are necessary to call yourself a chef?

[melkor]

To call yourself 'chef' without qualifying it would be implying you were something you are not.

I am at a loss to see where this comes from. According to Merriam Webster, a chef is the head of the kitchen; a skilled cook who manages a kitchen.

Can you point me to some authority to support what qualifications you believe are necessary to call yourself a chef?

←

m-w.com says:

1 : a skilled cook who manages the kitchen (as of a restaurant)

The guy slinging hash at a neighborhood diner while bossing around the dishwasher isn't a chef. The same goes for some random guy standing in his home kitchen wearing a Bragard jacket and a toque, not even if he's doing his best Ramsay impression throwing pans and swearing at his friends while they do prep work.

I fail to see the difference between a personal chef and a caterer, but it's abundantly clear that there is a difference between a restaurant chef and a personal chef.

[Wayne]

A chef is the person who runs/manages a food operation, whether it's a small restaurant or a large hotel food service. It's managerial with hands-on

requirements dependent on size. Some went to Culinary School and some

did not. You do not go to "Chef's School" even though some institutions call

it that.

I'm a good home cook. I worked in the industry when I was young. I'm also

a good carpenter/woodworker. Both are hobbies/passions. I would never call myself a chef or a builder although friends and family do

I don't own a cook's jacket although I would not be adverse to getting one.

It would serve the same function as a heavy canvas shirt when engaged in a

home building project: personal and wardrobe protection

[Abra]

Well, Melkor, not exactly. A caterer prepares the food offsite, usually well ahead of time, often en masse, has a standardized menu, and delivers food to the event. As far as I know, only personal chefs cook everything fresh onsite, often with the client standing right in the kitchen watching, kids running in and out, guests arriving early and wanting to watch, and so on.

Do you have something against personal chefs, or is it more a matter of semantics for you?

Edited November 14, 2005 by Abra (log)

[melkor]

It's a matter of semantics. They are two completely different jobs. I'm thrilled that people are able to make a living works as personal chefs not only because it's a good thing to be able to support yourself doing something you love but also because it means people who don't have time to cook are able to eat well.

edit: Incidentally, the personal chef I've hired to cook for my mother in the past has prepared the meals offsite.

Edited November 14, 2005 by melkor (log)

[chiantiglace]

Caterers are known to cook offsite and deliver and or have picked up. But it's quite common for caterers to cook onsite. There are many places I know that have large amounts of portable kitchen equipment, even whole trucks that are converted into mobile kitchens.

The visa versa goes to the personal chef. It's also very common for a personal chef to have everything prepped and ready to go so that all they have to do is work the steps fashionably and present in a well timed orchestra of events with there, well who knows, 5 course meal.

Ive worked all three never being head position, but getting the jist of what goes on in every career, that is restaraunt work, catering, and personal chef. There are VERY clear definitions between the three. The focus is completely different and has been exemplified already. Restaraunt Chef manages a constant team of people in a constant place setting. The difference there is that you never know what your going to get any night. You have to evaluate your staff for a long term bases, check food costs periodically and basically make sure that the system runs smoothely all the time.

A caterer can fluxuate very much. Your business depends on when someone needs to hire you. You could be solid booked for a week and have nothing the next. There is a greater time for planning and making sure everything is ready to go for the event. The downfall is you can't really have left over product. The more product you have left over the worse your food costs is going to be because it may not be likely to use the product before it expires. The staffing, unless a very well established caterer, may change dramatically. You may have a lot of 2nd or 3rd jobbers that may cancel on you at the last minute. It's a struggle to keep up on not only a staff, but a good staff.

A personal chef is a lot different. You have very much less help and sometimes cant afford to hire on help. The buck stops at you. There is nobody else to blame if something goes wrong. The personal chef is more like a performance to me. It's kind of fun sometimes, and antagonizing others. Bascially half the job is playing peoples personalities. Its almost like being a saleman. You have to bust your ass to get clientel and keep busting to continue clientel. The thing about personal chef that gets tricky is, going back to a point I made before, people are ignorant. You can easily gather clientel that you know aren't going to know any better. A lot of the time (if in resort area) there drunk. So you could basically serve them food thats better than they are used to even if its not that great and they will still be impressed. Unfrotunately you cannot do this in a restaraunt because you don't know who you are going to get as a customer and your also working with a whole staff that is aware of good food and if your capable of acheiving the quality you are representing.

It just seems to me the difference lies in the ability to "lie". restaraunt chef has the least room to, lets say, bullshit his abilities. Then comes the caterer and then comes the personal chef. There is no denying a true chef no matter what he/she does. Its just what you do and how you do it that comes in to question. A restaraunt chef is being questioned not only more often, but more thoroughly.

I hope this opens helps us figure out the difference a little more. If it doesnt, just call me crazy.

[Abra]

Wow, even though I know about 600 personal chefs, you all know some that are really different. Unless you have a commercial kitchen, it's illegal to have food prepped in advance, in almost every state. And I can't imagine serving food to drunk clients, naver having seen anything like that.

The ass-busting part is right on!

[Badiane]

Well, I have a piece of paper proclaiming me to be a 'chef'. Went to school, worked like a dog, wrote the test, got the paper. I was proud to have earned the right to wear the jacket, and I salute the women and men who put it on every single day and pursue that career. I've never had a harder job. I may have been marginally successful at it, but you soon learn that there is indeed a line between cook and chef. I know which side of the line I came down on, so I left the business.

I'm a cook. A really good one. I'm proud of that.

I heard an old joke the other day:

What is the difference between a cook and a chef?

Chefs don't have tattoos.

Of course everyone has tattoos now, but you get the jist of it

[Malawry]

Chef-instructors at my culinary alma mater were fond of saying that chefs always wish they were still cooks and it's only cooks who want to call themselves chefs. I'm not sure I've seen this play out IRL though.

I think Abra and I both have jobs quite different from what a restaurant chef does, but a restaurant chef is not the only type of chef out there. We both take responsibility for budget, creative control, hours, sanitation, inventory, and when needed we hire a brigade/staff. To me, those are the things that delineate a chef--not whether or not you're running a restaurant per se.

[Jmahl]

It is interesting that the U.S. and France take a different tack on the use of Chef. In the U.S., recent culinary school grads often call themselves chef. We know they are, at best, rank beginners on a long struggle to one day, perhaps, become a Chef. Like many things in this country we seem to have watered down a title of respect and professional attainment.

I've heard it said that one becomes a Chef when Chefs that one respects begins to call you Chef. A white jacket does not make a Chef. Only years of study, work, sweat and respect by your peers makes a Chef -- if at all.

[dougery]

My understanding of the term "chef" is that he/she cooks professionally and is given a degree of creative license (in regards to the menu). As well, that person SHOULD be a very good "cook".

Myself... I would consider myself a good cook, but on occasion, my friends jokingly call me "Chef Doug".

[*Deborah*]

I wouldn't even call myself a cook...I can cook. I'm better at eating, though.

[Abra]

You might be interested in the blog I'm doing right now. I'd love to get comments on the gig with the teenage staff - would you call my role cook, or chef?

[chiantiglace]

A lot of personal chefs have access to professional kitchens. yes it is illegal to work out of your home, and have heard some stories. I pastry chef I worked for told me of a story about a colleague he had that use to do all kinds of pstry work out of his "suped-up" garage. He had tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment until he was busted and had to shut down his operation.

[Carrot Top]

From everything that I know of Abra, I would not have a problem calling her "chef" any day.

The parameters of the word, which used to be strictly formal, a term of some detailed entitlement, may have stretched to include other concepts that did not exist in the same ways in previous times in the ways that they do now.

Just my opinion.

[culinary bear]

I think there's a shifting line between cook and chef, at least in the public perception thereof.

In the UK, just about anyone who works in a kitchen would call themselves a chef. A cook is generally held to be anyone who works institutionally - usually a works canteen, fast food place, residential home, hospital and the like - and can be a term of approbrium to the general public.

It's increasingly common to find a young jack-the-lad in his late teens honoured with the title of 'chef' even when they're the only soul cooking spicy chicken wings for pissed punters in some pub in Hackney.

In the serious trade, however, there are chefs, and there are chefs. I could liken it to the army - you've your officer types, who command and control; you've got your NCOs and enlisted personnel. In my view, in 'honourable' kitchens, your chefs are the head chef (or exec chef if that's your thing) and the sous chef.

The chef de cuisine is the chief of the kitchen, as is borne out by a basic knowledge of French. The sous chef is his deputy. These, to me, are the two 'chef' ranks, because the two of them run the kitchen. They might well run a section as well as needs dictate (and should be able to cook everyone else under the table) but their main function is to control the running and supply of the kitchen. They're the officers - the junior sous is the sergeant, and the chefs de partie the corporals.

Edited November 15, 2005 by culinary bear (log)

[melkor]

You might be interested in the blog I'm doing right now.  I'd love to get comments on the gig with the teenage staff - would you call my role cook, or chef?

←

So when Fat Guy or any other civilian cooks at the James Beard house they too should be called chef? Honestly, I'd call your role part personal chef and part babysitter. If the group you were working with were actual cooks who had any idea what you were talking about should you have asked them to sear, mince, dice, plate, or saute something, that might be a different story.

At the end of the day I don't see why there is a need to merge the definition of the word chef and the phrase 'personal chef'. There is no shame in being a personal chef. Anyone who can make a living behind a stove is taking advantage of a serious talent they have. Restaurant chefs are what people think of when they hear the word chef, personal chef brings to mind something else - the reality is that you should call yourself whatever you think you are.

[culinary bear]

As an addition to my above post, I should also point out that in the UK it is not the custom to use 'Chef' as a personal title. One would almost never hear someone addressed as or referred to as Chef Blanc, Chef Heathcote, Chef Ramsay, etc.

Edited November 15, 2005 by culinary bear (log)

[MarketStEl]

As an addition to my above post, I should also point out that in the UK it is not the custom to use 'Chef' as a personal title.  One would almost never hear someone addressed as or referred to as Chef Blanc, Chef Heathcote, Chef Ramsay, etc.

←

Actually, I don't hear "Chef" used as an honorific in this fashion that much in the U.S., either, though it does happen from time to time.

Those newspapers (coughThe New York Timescough) that religiously use honorifics in followup references to people do not use "Chef"; the followup reference would be to "Mr." or "Ms." <chef's name>.

In most newspapers, the word "chef" might precede the name on the first reference only.

But inquiring minds want to know:

What do you all call Ainsley Harriott?

[culinary bear]

It rhymes with the thing ships use to stop them moving about when they don't want to.

[Chris Amirault]

Capital W?