To not destroy great ingredients could be done by a relatively simple (qualified) chef. I expect most restaurants to be above what I can cook at home i.e. when it doesn't involve just a simple cut of meat, conventionally prepared.
Yes it's said to be now integrated into mainstream cookery.
Well, this is taking my point to the other extreme isn't it? I was just advocating a slightly more generous portion for the money... Each to their own.
So...does this mean the wedding's off?
So...does this mean the wedding's off?
This is a very interesting subject, with many varied aspects. To many people eating out is viewed as an overall experience, with food quality being only part of that. This explains the survival of restaurants who turn out mediocre (sometimes truly appalling) food - points can be scored by an interesting menu, attentive staff, oak beams and roaring fire, or simply the social experience. To those of us who have a genuine passion for food this can be rather frustrating. Our local village pub restaurant used to be quite good, but since a change of owner and chef now struggles with food quality. Yet it remains popular because it's a beautifully restored Elizabethan building, has fantastic waiting on staff and is a 'place to be seen'. We have often walked back from a pretty poor, but over priced meal, thinking that we could have done far better food at home at a fraction of the cost. Part of this is that most things that we would have chosen off the menu are things that we probably have cooked at home. Then again, if you are prepared to pay for Michelin star food then I think you can rightfully expect something very special, not only because of the skills of the chef, but also because the dish is way beyond anything you are likely to attempt at home. The competent home cook has two big advantages - not having the same budgetary constraints and not having the same time pressures as a commercial chef.
