Monday, June 15, 2009

Does Transglutaminase Work on Shark Meat?

shark I do believe the phrase "molecular gastronomy" has officially jumped the shark. In what has to be one of the goofiest little bits of prose I've ever read, The Feedbag brings us this gem: Mystery Behind Meat Glue Revealed. The 150-word thriller explaining how "molecular gastronomers" use transglutaminase, a/k/a "meat glue," is cribbed pretty much directly from this equally goofy piece, "What is Meat Glue?", from the Tampa Bay Examiner's resident "Molecular Gastronomy Examiner."[*] The Feedbag piece even duplicates the misspelling of transglutaminase as "triglutaminase" as well as the ungrammatical explanation that it "[is] an enzymes [sic] that catalyzes covalent bonds between free amine groups and gamma-caroxminid [sic] groups of protein or peptide bond [sic] gluatamine [sic]." That super-scientific explanation - minus the misspellings - is lifted directly from (drum roll please) Wikipedia. The Examiner article also references a "trilutaminase" for variety, while Feedbag mixes it up by throwing in the obligatory "Frankensteinish ingredients" comment.

[Sigh.] I don't even know where to start, so I won't. I do enjoy reading Feedbag, but their coverage of "molecular gastronomy" certainly leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, it's probably helpful that we've reached the point that 90% of the time, you can safely assume that someone using the phrase "molecular gastronomy" has no idea what they're talking about.


[*]"Examiners" are freelance, apparently unedited, writers for the paper's website.



Sunday, June 14, 2009

Chef Allen's - North Miami Beach

Chef Allen's[sorry, this restaurant has closed]

Allen Susser was one of the original pioneers of what has been variously called the "Mango Gang" or "Floribbean" or "New Florida" cuisine back in the late 1980's, along with such illustrious names as Norman Van Aken, Douglas Rodriguez, Mark Militello and Jonathan Eismann. While each of his compadres has had restaurants come and go over the years, Chef Susser is now running on a 23-year stretch at his original location in North Miami Beach (n/k/a Aventura), Chef Allen's - a truly remarkable feat given the failure rate of most restaurants.

It had probably been close to a decade since I'd last been to Chef Allen's, and I'll confess that I didn't miss it that much. What had seemed creative 20 years ago instead just seemed old-hat and uninspired on my last couple visits. The restaurant, its menu, and its clientele all seemed somewhat dusty and dated. A rather formal atmosphere seemed stilted and out-of-place. Perhaps hearing the refrain of "What a drag it is getting old," about a year ago Chef Susser gave Chef Allen's a major makeover. The dining room was updated and made both more contemporary and more casual, and the menu was given a major tweak to become a "Modern Seafood Bistro." I figured it was time for a repeat visit.

Chef Susser has not abandoned the mango entirely. Indeed, with South Florida in the middle of mango season, they could be found literally everywhere: each table in the restaurant had as its centerpiece a fresh mango. And, among many clever marketing gimmicks, Chef Susser offers a free dinner for two to anyone who brings in a wheelbarrow full of mangos to the restaurant. Given what a prolific season we're having, I suspect that there have been several folks who have taken advantage of that offer.

But the menu is not as reliant on the tropical fruits that were one of the calling cards of the original "Mango Gang." Picking up on a few prevalent local trends, Chef Allen's now offers an extended selection of smaller dishes, some of which are "snack"-size and others more customary appetizer portions, with mains focusing on locally sourced sustainable seafood and steaks cooked on a wood-burning grill. For us, the most interesting sounding items all resided in the "starters" section of the menu, so that's where we stayed, ordering six items (ranging in price from $4 to $11) to share plus a vegetable side.

Devils on horseback (bacon-wrapped dates, a/k/a the Official Snack of the Design District) were wrapped with nice meaty bacon, and stuffed with Manchego cheese instead of blue as we've seen elsewhere (much to Mrs. F's satisfaction, as she doesn't like blue cheeses), and also used a fatter, plumper date than we've had in other iterations. Saffron arroncini were a very pleasant surprise, little balls of saffron-inflected risotto given a crispy coating and fried. These were smaller than most arroncini I've had (I'd say tater-tot size) which gave a nice ratio of crispy exterior to creamy rice interior; the accompanying tomato jam I found to be a little too sweet.

Caesar salad was prepared tableside in the traditional manner, a nice nostalgic touch, and a really good caesar salad to boot. The dressing was redolent with garlic, lemon and anchovy all happily competing for attention, and an untraditional addition of toasted sesame seeds contributed nice texture and flavor.[*]

A tuna poke (a traditional Hawaiian dish of cubed raw tuna somewhat similar to a ceviche), marinated with tangerine segments, soy, ginger, and mint, and sprinkled with wasabi-spiked caviar, was something of a disappointment, the cubes of tuna a little chewy, and the flavor of the citrus somewhat overwhelming. This one flop was made up for by the shrimp & grits "brûlée", a delicious dish even if it is completely unlike any lowcountry shrimp 'n' grits. Instead, wild Florida shrimp are paired with some creamy Anson Mills grits, which are supplemented with Manchego cheese, cubes of tomato, bacon lardons, and shallots, piled into a ramekin and then run under the broiler until it's toasty and browned on top. I'd swear there were some unadvertised bits of lobster meat in the mix as well. This was a delicious dish which alone was worth the trip (and definitely worth the $10 price).

<><><><>Shrimp & Grits Brulee
Shrimp & Grits Brulee, photo credit: Jacob Katel


We also liked the Kyoto clam "hot pot," a generous portion for $10 of little, firm, meaty clams, steamed open in a broth of soy, sake, scallions and red peppers, with an unorthodox addition of sweet cooked bananas. Mrs. F liked everything about the dish but the bananas - they didn't offend my sensibilities, I'd even go so far as to say I liked them. If nothing else, I appreciate the boldness of the pairing. A side of a spinach fondue was too heavy on the cream and cheese, and too light on the spinach, to be considered a bona fide "vegetable side." Though it was good, it was perhaps overwhelmingly rich, though that didn't keep me from dunking bread even after all the spinach was gone.

Entrees mostly ranged from $20-30 but were a somewhat limited and - to us, at least - unexciting selection. While fish got an entire page of the menu, including a praise-worthy statement of commitment to sustainable fish and seafood, the offerings included only four fish options (snapper, yellowfin tuna, mahi mahi, and yellowtail), a fried calamari dish, a pasta dish featuring shrimp, and, perhaps most intriguing, a "surf & turf" with grilled shrimp and beef short ribs. The non-fish entrees also play it pretty close to the vest - skirt steak with chimichurri, filet with red wine demi-glace, burger, shortribs, pork chop, chicken paillard.

But that was OK, as our multitude of starters turned out to be plenty of food to make a meal, and is the way we often like to dine. And the price was certainly fair, with the food portion of our bill being under $60. Mrs. F vetoed dessert, which is too bad as I do have fond recollections of Chef Susser's "Kit Kats" dessert. The $25 corkage fee was money well spent, as the 2002 Hudelot-Noellat Chambolle-Musigny Les Charmes I brought was freaking awesome, if I may say so.

Aside from the recent menu overhaul, Chef Allen's does a good job of finding other ways to bring folks in. Throughout the summer they are offering free interactive cooking classes on Fridays from 6pm-7pm (conveniently before dinner time, you'll note), on Father's Day they're offering to let Dad cut his own steak to be grilled on their Lyonnaise wood-burning grill, and every Wednesday is "Wine Down Wednesday" with all bottles on the list offered at half price. You don't stick around for more than twenty years in the restaurant business without learning a few new tricks along the way, and it's reassuring to see that Chef Allen's keeps working on ways to keep things fresh.

Chef Allen's
19088 N.E. 29th Avenue
Aventura, FL 33180
305.935.2900

Chef Allen's on Urbanspoon


[*]OK, Miami restaurant historians: years ago (10+) there was, briefly, a restaurant on Lincoln Road called Lure which had sushi and an odd but good Asian/Mediterranean menu. They made one of the best caesar salads I've ever had, with a tahini-based dressing and tempura-fried anchovies. The only online reference I can find to it is in this article from 1997. Any idea who was behind the place?


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Best Of ... What, Exactly? - Updated

New Times Best of Miami In today's Short Order blog, Lee Klein of Miami New Times offers a baffling and seemingly self-defeating explanation of the NT's annual "Best of Miami"[*] listings. First, let me confess that I've never put much weight in this list, and really just stopped reading it entirely when a couple years ago they gave the "Best Restaurant Wine List" award to Maroosh, a perfectly serviceable Middle-Eastern restaurant whose wine list is - really, no exaggeration - less exceptional than many convenience stores I've been to. Seriously. Unless of course you consider a horizontal collection of the ubiquitous, mass-production Kendall-Jackson "Vintner's Reserve" to be impressive (they have the Chardonnay, the Zinfandel, the Cabernet Sauvignon AND the Merlot!). This was such an insult both to the several local restaurants that make an effort to put out interesting, fairly priced wine lists, and the diners who genuinely give a crap about such things, that I just stopped reading "Best of Miami." I didn't even look at the thing last year.

Besides, I'm just not a big believer in the whole "best" concept. Maybe I'm just incapable of making decisions or lacking in strong opinions (unlikely), but I find most matters, food or otherwise, to be too nuanced to declare such absolute superlatives. Best Spanish? I love Michelle Bernstein's contemporary take on tapas at Sra. Martinez, but I also like the more straight-ahead versions at Xixon; I also love the callos and ensalada rusa at Copas y Tapas, and the bacalaitos at Taberna Giralda, to say nothing of the more formal dinner fare at Ideas. Is one the "best"? I couldn't say; depends what I'm in the mood for any particular day. Dim sum? Tropical is the most consistent, but I had better chicken feet at Mr. Chu's on South Beach (before it closed - here's hoping they reinstate dim sum at the new Coral Gables location). These kinds of lists draw in readers (and, thusly, advertisers), but I don't think they usually mean all that much.

But the New Times' preemptive defense, hoping to avoid the "catcalls of derision," just gives me more reasons to disregard the latest list:
We do try to choose what we think is the best in each category, but with the same set of unofficial caveats that Oscar voters abide by. For instance, we are just as hesitant to name the same winner for the same item two years in a row. Do our readers need to read that Garcia's makes a great fish sandwich year after year after year? We think not.
So, if readers are looking for, say, the best fish sandwich, they should only rely on New Times every other year? This is the "Best of Miami - Unless You Were the Best Last Year"? How do I know whether this is the year that really has the "best," or this is the year that you decided to list someone else just for the sake of variety?

Plus nowadays every publication and online food site has their own set of bests -- do we really need to read that Garcia's makes a great fish sandwich 20 times a year?
No. Agreed. Completely. But then - and maybe I've lost my train of thought here - what exactly is the point of this "Best of Miami" thing anyway?

On the other hand, you can't put together a credible overview without giving nods to those establishments that everybody knows are deserving. So we mix it up -- best actor this year, best supporting the next. And we are also extremely unlikely to give more than one nod to any restaurant in any one year -- so if your favorite steak house didn't win Best Steak House, it may be because it won Best Restaurant In South Beach. Or vice versa.
So if, again, let's say I'm looking for the best fish sandwich in Miami, and it happens to be one of those years that the place that actually has the best fish sandwich in Miami isn't being listed for "Best Fish Sandwich in Miami" (because that would be so boring), I should instead look in, say, the category for "Best Restaurant that has Park Benches In Back Looking Out on a Somewhat Dingy But Still Slightly Charming in its Own Way Part of the Miami River"? Very helpful. And once again, if "everybody knows" what restaurants are deserving of awards, then what, exactly, is the point of publishing the list?

This is for those bloggers -- and I'm talking to you, Chowhounders -- who annually blather on about how our more questionable picks just have to be attributed to an attempt to please advertisers. Let me say, once and for all, that this is simply not the case, and never has been -- both in terms of our Best Of issue, and all other writing. Period.[**]
Just for the record, I have never said that. And in fact, the numbers tend to bear it out - sort of. You can take a look at the 2008 Best of Miami listings, and only a small fraction of the award-recipients are advertisers, and there are certainly a lot more advertisers than awards. On the other hand, I suspect - and this may tie into the now-acknowledged "let's mix it up regardless of who's really the best" philosophy - many current advertisers have been recipients of prior awards, and vice versa. I am not a subscriber to the "advertiser conspiracy" theory; however, it shouldn't give anyone much comfort that some picks are so outright bizarre that the most natural explanation that occurs to some readers is that they must be paid for.

But I do think New Times' own explanation for its "best of" decision-tree is reason enough to doubt its reliability, independent of the unsubstantiated rumors of advertiser influence. If the purpose is really to just pick the "best" in any category, it shouldn't remotely matter whether the same place was named previously. Spreading the wealth around, just for the heck of it, does little to assist diners and undermines whatever credibility the publication might otherwise have.

It seems that the implicit message is "It's all just entertainment, don't take it too seriously, we're just trying to sell a newspaper here after all." (Of course, being a free paper, what they're really selling is advertising.) And I understand that. But sadly, the "Best of" Primer presents a very compelling argument for why anyone who really cares about finding the best food in Miami may well find New Times' "Best of Miami" largely useless in that endeavor.

Update: I posted a paraphased version of this as a comment on the Short Order post, and Lee Klein gave a pretty lengthy, earnest response. It hasn't changed my mind on much, but it does provide some further explanation. As some have already noted in comments here, there's nothing wrong with provoking a healthy debate over food.


[*]Image at top via Miami New Times.

[**]I don't think anyone's bothered to mention the New Times "Best of Miami" list on Chowhound for more than two years, so "annually" would seem to be a stretch. But nonetheless, it's nice to know that Lee Klein is reading Chowhound for reasons other than just picking up ideas on what restaurant to visit next - "Gustavo the hairdresser"? Really?