On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:21:14 +0100, [email removed] Will Z. wrote: >[snip] > >> >> No, I love Indian food, and expect items which I expect to be cooked >> in a Tandoor to be so prepared. > >Fair enough ... But if it it means doing away with something that is a >*good* close approximation that allot of people enjoy are you going to >deny the that pleasure becuase it wasn't cooked on a Tnadoor? > >> ah, but do people enjoy it so much because they have have never had the real thing? >> If you have never tasted the difference, I don't expect you to >> understand this. > >There is not need to resort to patronage Michael. As it happens, I have >Indian relatives and live a third of every year is Delhi thus I *am* fully >aware of what the difference is. I agree that they are incomparable if one >is being purist about this but I think it absurd to insist upon this. > >> I'm sorry, I wasn't deliberately being patronising - and it's good to know that you do know what I'm talking about. However, I still don't think it is absurd to insist. >> When I lived in London, in the 70's, Tandoori food was just that. >> >> These days, it seems that a very hot grill will suffice. This produces >> nothing like the genuine flavour. >> >> And - petty has nothing to do with it. If I spend money, I wish to >> receive what I'm paying for. Don't you? > >Absolutely ... However, i don't think preparing tnadoori chicken on a very >hot grill rather than a traditional tandoor is such a heinous crime. I'm >sure more restaurants would were it practical. > >Having a large wood fueled Oven in the middle of central london isn't >exactly practical now is it? > When I lunched In a restaurant in a side street off Brick Lane recently, the waiter apologised that he couldn't provide a Naan because the Tandoor wasn't yet hot enough - and offered me an alternative. This place also serves the absolute best CTM I've ever eaten - my girlfriend is hooked on it. This is not by chance. The meat had been prepared in a Tandoor, and the resulting blend of spices, cream and smokiness is exquisite. So I will be eating there again, of course. (All right, I know you can't define Brick Lane as Central London). >> >> Afterall, there are not many Indian restaurants that could >> >physically accomodate an Tandoor even if they wanted to. >> >-- >> so why do they call themselves Tandoori Restaurants? - Surely my >> original point? > >becuase they wish to indicate to their would be customers that they serve >Tnadoori dishes, albeit ones not necessarily prepared using a Tandoor. >-- so are we now talking not only about a breach of the Trades Descriptions Act, but also of wilfully misleading the consumer? How can you describe a dish as Tandoori, if it is not prepared in the Tandoor? I suspect that you and I are going to continue to differ on this point, but it would be interesting to hear other people's point of view too. >Will van Zwanenberg | email: [email removed] > | To reply, please remove: REMOVE_THIS_. > >"If we don't succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - Vice President Dan Quayle, Texas Republican Convention, 1989. Best Regards, Mike Roebuck Basel, Switzerland ïcq#7018252 [email removed] "you can't shake hands with a clenched fist" (Indira Ghandi) Article 974 of uk.food+drink.restaurants:
London, United Kingdom