Curry Recipes Online
Curry Photos & Videos => Curry Videos => Topic started by: Martinwhynot on February 10, 2013, 11:08 PM
-
Hi everyone,
I finally got round to making a video of me cooking up some stuff....all with freshly cooked chicken tikka:
Do Piaza, Chasni & Dil Cognac (the one with brandy and grapes - not my normal thing to be honest!)
I hope you can see how easy it is and, for the doubters, that it doesn't produce an oil slick)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbpkUugjLyg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbpkUugjLyg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Z78AT5Ddw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Z78AT5Ddw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddKa2pRxdiY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddKa2pRxdiY)
I hope you enjoy it, and if you've already made it and found it too oily, please try again properly (kidding!)
Regards,
Martin
-
Hi everyone,
I finally got round to making a video of me cooking up some stuff....all with freshly cooked chicken tikka:
Do Piaza, Chasni & Dil Cognac (the one with brandy and grapes - not my normal thing to be honest!)
I hope you can see how easy it is and, for the doubters, that it doesn't produce an oil slick)
I hope you enjoy it, and if you've already made it and found it too oily, please try again properly (kidding!)
Regards,
Martin
Dont forget Martin, that the people that weren't happy with the amount of oil were all referring to the original recipe which, from Boabys own admittance, was a complete guess and had way too much oil even for himself.
Frank. ;)
-
Frank,
For the record I used 800ml in the 5kg base to get the base used here. It tastes very similar to the base used in my own local here in Shrewsbury... I think they add a bit of coriander and maybe lemon juice too - must find out
Martin
-
For the record I used 800ml in the 5kg base to get the base used here
So you used only about 56% of the oil specified in BB1's original recipe then?
Seems to me that your comments on "oil slicks" and about "found it too oily" and "try again properly" are totally invalid then (as well as being more than a little antagonistic!)?
-
For the record I used 800ml in the 5kg base to get the base used here
So you used only about 56% of the oil specified in BB1's original recipe then?
Seems to me that your comments on "oil slicks" and about "found it too oily" and "try again properly" are totally invalid then (as well as being more than a little antagonistic!)?
Seems to me that you have no sense of humour. I was very specific about what recipe I used and I even used the last word of the first post here "kidding" deliberately at the end to make it very clear...sorry it wasn't clear enough for you. Also, the debate about the oil rumbled on after the recipe was amended so I think my comment is actually valid, although clearly it touched a nerve for you.
-
love the flambe method you use. pour it all over the hob, fantastic ;D
-
I was very specific about what recipe I used...Also, the debate about the oil rumbled on after the recipe was amended so I think my comment is actually valid, although clearly it touched a nerve for you.
But, as far as I can tell, you have even used only 80% of the oil (i.e. 800ml) specified in BB1's amended recipe (i.e. 1 litre - rather than the original 2 litres). Or am I missing something?
So your comments are still invalid (and remain antagonistic, to say the least - to me, anyway).
And whatever happened to the "don't change a single thing, or it won't work!" rhetoric then? ::)
-
The 'don't change a thing' rhetoric came at a time people were criticising before making it. I said that only as a precaution to them as if they deviate they cannot give accurate feedback - that's all.
The pics I posted originally were following the 7kg base recipe halved - oil and all - honestly.
While all the bickering was rolling on, BB and I were discussing things in the background (others too) as we wanted to try the recipes but not have the distraction and unpleasantness of a public argument about it so took it offline. I obtained the full restaurant recipe and mathematically reworked it for a 5kg batch. Had BB not given up with this forum you'd all have it by now. Please remember that he published the recipe from repetitively watching it being prepared, I can't be bothered going back to check but I don't think it was ever presented as a finished, highly tested piece.
Either way, if anyone wants to try this: use 800ml oil half the coconut and half the sugar (the sugar can always be added back in if your taste prefers it)
Sorry for any offence caused, only intended as a joke, as clearly stated. Now as I only want to engage in cooking and improving I'll step back from this unless *I* consider it valid to helping others try it.
Regards,
Martin
-
I obtained the full restaurant recipe and mathematically reworked it for a 5kg batch. Had BB not given up with this forum you'd all have it by now.
We do have it in the amended version which I posted on bb1's behalf.
-
Had BB not given up with this forum you'd all have it by now.... Now as I only want to engage in cooking and improving I'll step back from this unless *I* consider it valid to helping others try it.
I urge you to stand your ground and argue your case. How can it make sense, as quite a few people often say - that some comment will be their last word? It strikes me as weak, weak, weak to do that. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition hardly ever agree but neither of them is a quitter, like any person is who gives up. It's easy for things written down in a hurry to be misinterpreted, so it's good and useful of you to clarify. I find your reports and feedback interesting. Please keep them coming.
Such debates are also very valid in testing the validity of something, like a Jeremy Paxman or John Humphries interview, or counter arguments in Court. Or a curry recipe. Forums/environments where even the slightest disagreement is frowned upon tend to believe, and be fobbed-off with, any old nonsense. How can that possibly be better?
-
The 'don't change a thing' rhetoric came at a time people were criticising before making it.
Because, despite what BB1 thinks, people on this forum Can cook and could see there were discrepancies with the quantities.
Please remember that he published the recipe from repetitively watching it being prepared, I can't be bothered going back to check but I don't think it was ever presented as a finished, highly tested piece.
For almost 2 weeks BB1 was insistent that this was "The" recipe. Even getting angry with people for daring to question him before they tried it. ::)
Sorry for any offence caused, only intended as a joke,
You may have tried to make a joke of it but it was also a bit of a dig, misleading and unnecessary.
And by the way, I've never had a problem with upping the oil in a base, its the method that bothers me ;)
Cheers, Frank. :)
-
I've only a 5ltr pot at the moment, I made a 2.5 kg onion batch - exactly half of the more recent 5kg version.Scaling down by half doesn't work as a sauce on it's own. I've ran into this problem many times doing Ashoka & various others.Half of the 5ltr version will be oily & the cumulative effect on taste from the GG/whole spices are not there as there won't be enough in it to produce a sauce on it's own.I resisted adding any other spices/pastes as it's not designed for that.
It's not really all that different to Ashoka or taz methods, with the oil & whole spice etc. The pic of the actual Ashoka base on herehttp://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,3199.0.html (http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,3199.0.html), looks as thick as the BB base. That may have been overlooked in Panpot's original thread.
In this case a small sample of a larger recipe produced a different result(on taste)
I'll post a couple of pics of the base, but they won't tell anyone anything
oil content;
If i wanted to upscale a batch of ca's gravy for example( 600gm onion/125ml oil/ 1600 water) to a 2.5 kg onion batch(which is still pretty small batch of gravy)....how much oil should i add if i add ingredients like for like?...the same amount as the BB 5k?
If i wanted to do the same to cbm's shah base(300ml oil/800gm onion), I would end up with over 900ml oil for a 2.5kg onion...or over 2.5 ltr oil for a 7kg batch..more than the original BB posted base, which he has since corrected to 1.5l from 2.
I'll make this base again when i get a bigger pot, as there may something to be learned from this approach.
Oil has long since been the source of conflict & power plays ::)
If someone disagrees with with my arithmetic above, i'm interested hear how to scale the ingredients properly
Regards
ELW
-
Thanks, George. I don't feel on this forum I've been arguing a case, more defending myself from the attacks ;) When there's alternative places to go it kinda makes someone's decisions that much easier - if I left I'd definitely not be the first and it's the same few that spoil it - all the time. I can cope with lively banter but that was a rarity on this topic.
Hopefully my video proves it is a base to consider. I don't want it to restart an argument. If anyone feels it is aimed at them perhaps they need to look inwardly as it was a general comment based on some of the diatribe that was cut out of the topic by moderators, etc. I don't mind arguing a relevant point but it gets tiring when it travels sideways to the point it is no longer about the curry.
-
Sorry for any offence caused, only intended as a joke,
You may have tried to make a joke of it but it was also a bit of a dig, misleading and unnecessary.
[/quote]
Sorry Frank, if there was a little dig it is small change in comparison to the nonsense that was seen on this topic. I'm a great believer in "if the cap fits..." ;)
Regards,
Martin
-
Firstly, thank you for taking the time and trouble to make a video of yourself cooking a Chicken Tikka Dopiaza. It's always interesting to see how others are doing things.
But a couple of things (well more than a couple actually) here struck me as being strange. So a few observations:
- Why are you adding base cold? I always heat mine up first because I don't want a pan heat drop when I add it. Also, why are you taking the pan off the heat when you add it? This just drops the heat in the pan right down. Or is this simple expediency, you just don't have enough hands?
- Why add g/g paste half way through cooking? Why do you not fry this off at the beginning?
- Tomato paste added half way through cooking? Why? Why do you not fry this off earlier and caramelise the sugars in the tomato paste?
- Spices added half way through cooking? Strange!
You mention no 'oil slick'. Erm, you didn't cook this long enough or hard enough to get any oil separation!
I have to say, this is one of the strangest ingredient addition and cooking techniques of BIR I've come across. Is it specific to 'glasgow curries' you refer to here or is there some other reason for this cooking sequence?
-
Firstly, thank you for taking the time and trouble to make a video of yourself cooking a Chicken Tikka Dopiaza. It's always interesting to see how others are doing things.
But a couple of things (well more than a couple actually) here struck me as being strange. So a few observations:
- Why are you adding base cold? I always heat mine up first because I don't want a pan heat drop when I add it. Also, why are you taking the pan off the heat when you add it? This just drops the heat in the pan right down. Or is this simple expediency, you just don't have enough hands?
- Why add g/g paste half way through cooking? Why do you not fry this off at the beginning?
- Tomato paste added half way through cooking? Why? Why do you not fry this off earlier and caramelise the sugars in the tomato paste?
- Spices added half way through cooking? Strange!
You mention no 'oil slick'. Erm, you didn't cook this long enough or hard enough to get any oil separation!
I have to say, this is one of the strangest ingredient addition and cooking techniques of BIR I've come across. Is it specific to 'glasgow curries' you refer to here or is there some other reason for this cooking sequence?
Ditto ( lazy way out accepted ) to all of the above. Have to add though ( and repeat ) that the 'base' being added is not a base but a finished and full ( flavoursome maybe too although we did not like the end product ) sauce - SAUCE as in finished CURRY SAUCE. I do not mean or intend offence by shouting but just adding some emphasis by way of my capital letters.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the questions:
Cold base: It had been defrosted and then heated up in the microwave so was actually quite hot, although not like in a pot.
g/g halfway through cooking: It didn't, it went in at the start with tom paste, methi, chilli, etc. The process starts with base instead of oil and it's a different technique - more used than you might think.
spices & tom paste halfway through: as above
Oil separation: This is a different technique so can't be compared to what you may be doing. The base is actually a fully cooked out 'sauce'. It's more ready to go than a watery base. Also, as there are no dry spices being added, it doesn't need so long to cook out the raw taste, etc. The oil had definitely separated from the base at the end (perhaps it didn't come out well enough in the video though). But definitely a finished dish, trust me.
I accept this is a different method! I've had several comments to the effect that this is the style they've seen in their BIRs and were a bit relieved to see it offered here. It's just a regional thing.
Hope that answers your questions, have a look at the recipes posted here and see the technique as it's written. You start with a dry pan and put in base instead of oil. Taking the pan off the heat is commonly done in BIR to add things (You Tube has countless examples) but not enough hands was a bit of a factor, lol! The curry is still cooking for around 8-9 mins - the video was chopped up a bit as I was running out of memory as I progressed.
Regards,
Martin
-
Thanks, George. I don't feel on this forum I've been arguing a case, more defending myself from the attacks ;) Hopefully my video proves it is a base to consider. I don't want it to restart an argument.
Yes, I agree, but try not to take offence (that's my suggestion, anyway), other than some comments which I agree do go a bit far, like anyone suggesting you and BB1 are the same individual (assuming you're not)! Most of the debate concerns oil levels and the authenticity and value of the recipe. It's like a sort of robust peer group review. As I said, hold you ground whether it's defence or 'prosecution'!
I know from my own trial of the BB1 sauce that it has aspects of value, so your findings, videos and everything are of much interest, thanks.
-
'Different technique' is a good point and one to be respected but the addition of g and g and tom paste etc was not at the beginning and there was no frying off of either of them. This throws up two points for me. 1. they will still have a raw taste within the curry unless that gets masked by the sauce / 2. if the former applies then there is no reason to add them in the first place.
-
Martin
Many thanks for your prompt reply to my questions.
So it's a different technique and method altogether to what I'm accustomed to. I shall put my 'Curious Cat' Hat on and investigate this curry sauce further! It does sound a lot like the Taz base I've tried already but seems to have some differences.
Cheers!
-
So it's a different technique and method altogether to what I'm accustomed to.
Yes and if you'd read the actual Glasgow base thread you would have known that and saved you (and us) unnecessary chatter.
-
'Different technique' is a good point and one to be respected but the addition of g and g and tom paste etc was not at the beginning and there was no frying off of either of them. This throws up two points for me. 1. they will still have a raw taste within the curry unless that gets masked by the sauce / 2. if the former applies then there is no reason to add them in the first place.
Rubydoo,
With respect I'm struggling to see how the gg/Tom/methi isn't going in at the start. In the do Piaza all I was doing at the start was frying off a bit of onion. I then start the curry proper by adding some base (which I state replaces oil at the start of the commentary) then chuck the items in. I can't explain it any simpler that that I'm afraid, although I admit to forgetting the Tom paste in one after a few seconds then recovered it. Sorry if that doesn't help but several have reported it works for them. I note the comment that the Tom paste, if not cooked properly (assumed) has no value. I would actually offer that it would impede the finished dish as it would have a raw, slightly tomatoey taste to it.
Regards
Martin
-
I think at the end of the day it matters not. The proof will always be in the cooking which is something that is sadly lacking in many of the protagonists. Lesson for anybody is try it and then make up your own mind. This thread has developed around your vids ( I only watched the first one ) and I think peeps should be grateful for your efforts regardless of the fact of whether they agree or not.
Still do not see though ( not running vid again as yet ) how the g and g can be properly fried off at the stage and at the temp it was added. Not to worry, these online things are never too accurtate in display anyway. ;)
-
g/g halfway through cooking: It didn't, it went in at the start with tom paste, methi, chilli, etc. The process starts with base instead of oil and it's a different technique - more used than you might think.
Yes, I think a similar approach was used by an Indian chef in one of Madhur Jaffrey's programmes in the Curry Nation series.
-
I have to say, this is one of the strangest ingredient addition and cooking techniques of BIR I've come across. Is it specific to 'glasgow curries' you refer to here or is there some other reason for this cooking sequence? (http://I have to say, this is one of the strangest ingredient addition and cooking techniques of BIR I've come across. Is it specific to 'glasgow curries' you refer to here or is there some other reason for this cooking sequence?)
that would likely be the result when you examine the tiny sample of "bir" information available ::), but it doesnt necessarily make it so
-
George - thank you for the value added. I know I've seen this technique as far south as Manchester.
Rubydoo - the g/g is properly cooked out matey, honestly! The base sauce has enough oil to do it. I know it's hard to go against what we normally do (I used the 'oil in first then g/g, mix, methi etc' method for 20 years so it was hard for me too!) I suppose I was blind to the method as it promised a Glasgow Curry - and I wanted that a lot!
I understand that some won't try it because it doesn't fit their window of acceptability but I'm cooking it and it tastes how I expected. If that, to some, by assumption, means raw g/g and tom paste then they underestimate how well I can cook and how good the results are...but I know it's not gonna be loved by eeveryone, I've tasted some utter garbage in restaurants that have had customers actually in it - although not many, lol!
Regards,
Martin
-
Yes and if you'd read the actual Glasgow base thread you would have known that and saved you (and us) unnecessary chatter.
Yet, despite the fact that my unnecessary comments were on topic, you felt the need to add yet more unnecessary comments that were off topic. Which makes you a bit of a hypocrite.
Good stuff! Keep up the good work.
I've got some more comments to make now, is that going to be okay by you? ::)
-
With respect I'm struggling to see how the gg/Tom/methi isn't going in at the start. In the do Piaza all I was doing at the start was frying off a bit of onion. I then start the curry proper by adding some base (which I state replaces oil at the start of the commentary) then chuck the items in.
Hum!
For most people the start is the point before any base goes in. It's termed the start because you're frying in hot oil, that's where you're frying your onions initially, or are you not using any oil to fry your onions in? But you're not adding your g/g paste or tomato puree at this stage, you're adding it after the first two chef spoons of base go in. And the question still stands as to why? I (and I'm sure RubyDoo) both understand you're using the two chef spoons of base as your start and in replace of oil, but if you're already frying onions, then you've already started with oil.
I'm struggling to get my head round how the g/g and tomato paste can be cooked out when it's added half way through cooking.
-
Yes and if you'd read the actual Glasgow base thread you would have known that and saved you (and us) unnecessary chatter.
Yet, despite the fact that my unnecessary comments were on topic, you felt the need to add yet more unnecessary comments that were off topic. Which makes you a bit of a hypocrite.
(moderated)
Now why don't you be a good lad and go and read the relevant bb1 threads. Then you might even contemplate actually making the base and a curry. That will hopefully stop you blathering on unnecessarily as you will be speaking from experience, rather than out of your arse. ;D
Have a look at the Taz method while your at it as it is exactly the same.
-
Despite your sarcasm, I can only presume that you have limited experience as a curry chef - there are a thousand an one ways of cooking a curry, not excluding what I do in the video; other BIR deep fry the onions first too, then use that as a garnish at the end. If you watch the *other* videos (where I do not fry onions at the start) the same procedure is adhered to: that's initial base for g/g, methi, chilli, tom paste, etc as required and I keep adding a chefspoon at a time. I accept that some recipes ask for the onions to go in with the mix at the start but this one simply doesn't. Would it change the price of fish if I did do it that way? I don't know, maybe I'll try it next time.
Regarding it not being cooked out? Sorry I can't respond as it was cooked out - should've been here to try it!
Regards,
Martin
-
Yes and if you'd read the actual Glasgow base thread you would have known that and saved you (and us) unnecessary chatter.
Yet, despite the fact that my unnecessary comments were on topic, you felt the need to add yet more unnecessary comments that were off topic. Which makes you a bit of a hypocrite.
(moderated)
Now why don't you be a good lad and go and read the relevant bb1 threads. Then you might even contemplate actually making the base and a curry. That will hopefully stop you blathering on unnecessarily as you will be speaking from experience, rather than out of your arse. ;D
Have a look at the Taz method while your at it as it is exactly the same.
(http://r22.imgfast.net/users/2213/39/05/09/smiles/780817.gif)
Well put SS
-
I'm struggling to get my head round how the g/g and tomato paste can be cooked out when it's added half way through cooking.
On what do you base this observation, SYKK ? Surely all that is necessary in order for the g/g and tomato base to be properly cooked is that the temperature is sufficiently and the duration of cooking adequate -- what is you basis for arguing that this cannot be achieved if they are introduced half-way through the cooking process ?
** Phil.
-
Now why don't you be a good lad and go and read the relevant bb1 threads.
Already read them, still don't understand the need to add two lots of g/g paste and tomato puree and it sitll hasn't been explained why. Fancy a go?
Then you might even contemplate actually making the base and a curry.
Not at 7 Kg's of onions I won't be. And given the author of the original recipe states that if you scale it down it won't be the same, I can't see myself making it. Hence my questions in this thread.
That will hopefully stop you blathering on unnecessarily as you will be speaking from experience, rather than out of your arse. ;D
So asking questions and for clarification about a recipe and technique is blathering on unnecessarily and talking out of my arse is it?
Have a look at the Taz method while your at it as it is exactly the same.
Already have and I didn't like the amount of oil it used and produced.
-
Despite your sarcasm, I can only presume that you have limited experience as a curry chef
What sarcasm? I'm simply asking questions you keep answering with the statement, there's more than one way and method to cook a curry. I know there is, which is why I'm trying to understand what you're doing and why you're doing it. Of which you don't appear to be able to answer.
And yes, I have about 30 years limited experience of cooking curries.
-
I'm struggling to get my head round how the g/g and tomato paste can be cooked out when it's added half way through cooking.
I don't think it's either right or wrong. The best approach must be to try both approaches to see what difference it makes to the final taste of any specific dish. Many of my best curries have come from my 'breaking' the rules or ignoring approaches listed as 'myths' elsewhere on the forum.
-
Have a look at the Taz method while your at it as it is exactly the same.
Already have and I didn't like the amount of oil it used and produced.
[/quote]
it seems to me that you both dont understand the Taz base, its not the same, its much thinner to start with. It does not have the mix powder in it at a level to make it a finished sauce.
as you don't add extra oil to the pan you end up with less oil in the curry when its finished
-
"Already read them, still don't understand the need to add two lots of g/g paste and tomato puree and it sitll hasn't been explained why. Fancy a go?"
Not necessary, it didn't happen! Despite the recipes given and the video showing my version of how to do it, this is the order I'm doing things in:
1. Any onion/pepper etc that the curry demands get heated up for a bit in a tiny amount of oil.
2. I add base sauce (no oil, the base at this stage replaces the oil - just go with it)
3. Once in, I add g/g, tom paste, blended chilli, methi to the base and mix through.
4. I add pre-cooked ingredients and some more base sauce, mixing/scraping throughout.
5. Curry cooked when oil separates (I can add water if this takes a while to happen and it reduces too much.
At no point did I put para 3 stuff in twice! I did add other sundry items such as yoghurt and pathia sauce and a couple of mushrooms but you couldn't have mistaken them for g/g, etc. I hope!
Regards,
Martin
-
At no point did I put para 3 stuff in twice!
Your dish contains it twice.
You added it (I presume you added it, it is in the recipe) in the curry sauce (1/2 chef's spoon garlic/ginger paste, 1 chef spoon tomato puree) and you're adding both those ingredients again in the assembled dish. Yet you're not frying them at the beginning, simply dropping them into the middle of the dish, but the sauce already contains both those ingredients already in it.
So now you've put two lots of the same thing in your dish, one lot originally in the sauce, and another lot in your final dish. The second lot not being fried, so why are you adding them again?
-
what is you basis for arguing that this cannot be achieved if they are introduced half-way through the cooking process ?
I'm not arguing it can't be achieved. I'm asking what effect it's having on the flavour of the dish by simply dropping it into the sauce midway through cooking and not being fried like it normally is at the beginning.
When you fry tomato paste in oil you caramelise sugars adding a sweet toffee flavour as well as colouring. What effect is dropping tomato paste into the middle of a sauce that is then only cooked for about 5 mins? As far as I can tell - only colouring.
-
it seems to me that you both dont understand the Taz base
Yes, we don't understand the Taz base. ::)
-
At no point did I put para 3 stuff in twice!
Your dish contains it twice.
You added it (I presume you added it, it is in the recipe) in the curry sauce (1/2 chef's spoon garlic/ginger paste, 1 chef spoon tomato puree) and you're adding both those ingredients again in the assembled dish. Yet you're not frying them at the beginning, simply dropping them into the middle of the dish, but the sauce already contains both those ingredients already in it.
So now you've put two lots of the same thing in your dish, one lot originally in the sauce, and another lot in your final dish. The second lot not being fried, so why are you adding them again?
Right, sorry, I think I have your tone of writing sorted out (when you ask "why" in the current context, it sounds judgemental). From what I think you're asking me you've just queried why I added g/g and tom paste into the main base sauce that any BIR style curry makes (you state that is the first time) and then I add some again during the 'main curry cooking stage. Forgive me if this is wrong. If I'm right I would have thought the idea of having garlic and tomato in a base then adding more in the curry pan would have been seen in your 30 years of curry cooking, from my limited experience of 25 years I've not seen much else. Your suggestion that the second addition is not going to cook is, to my mind, incorrect. It does cook out and it does fry; it just happens to have other things there with it - to fry only needs heat and oil; just because it has other things doesn't mean that it won't fry IMHO. It works, for me at least.
Regards,
Martin
-
Already read them, still don't understand the need to add two lots of g/g paste and tomato puree and it sitll hasn't been explained why. Fancy a go?
Fancy a go at explaining why it works? No, not really. All I can say is that it does cook out and produces a respectable curry (but too greasy for my personal taste). If you're going to try it (you should really as it's clearly a new method for you), stick to the original BB1 base, scale it down to about a kilo of onions, but only use half the stated oil quantity.
-
Already read them, still don't understand the need to add two lots of g/g paste and tomato puree and it sitll hasn't been explained why. Fancy a go?
Fancy a go at explaining why it works? No, not really. All I can say is that it does cook out and produces a respectable curry (but too greasy for my personal taste). If you're going to try it (you should really as it's clearly a new method for you), stick to the original BB1 base, scale it down to about a kilo of onions, but only use half the stated oil quantity.
Thanks SS, I've PM'd SYKK with a bit more info so hopefully it will give more answers.
Regards,
Martin
-
stick to the original BB1 base, scale it down to about a kilo of onions, but only use half the stated oil quantity. (http://stick to the original BB1 base, scale it down to about a kilo of onions, but only use half the stated oil quantity.)
By how much did you scale the rest of the ingredients down by ss? 2.5kg with 500ml oil was no good-thats half of the new version
ELW
-
HEY EVERYONE!!!
I've just had a look and, apparently, there's other threads on this forum! Now I know that some won't realise this but there's people making other curries and joining and....oh, everything!
Let's enjoy all of the forum! I'm going to be making CA's base as I still love 'English' curries ;D
Regards,
Martin
-
I'm going to be making CA's base as I still love 'English' curries ;D
Maybe CA's recipes now qualify as Antipodean curries? :o ::) ;) :D
-
it seems to me that you both dont understand the Taz base
Yes, we don't understand the Taz base. ::)
So the point youre making is what? You dont understand it because it isnt the way you do it?
or because of youre incorrect point about the oil?
-
By how much did you scale the rest of the ingredients down by ss? 2.5kg with 500ml oil was no good-thats half of the new version
I used the original base recipe and scaled down to 1kg of onions and divided all other ingredients by 7 (because there were 7kg of onions in the original recipe). I found the curries acceptable apart from the excessive greasiness because the curries I made never released any of the oil to spoon off at the end. If I make it again, and I probably will, all I'll do is half the oil content.
-
If I'm right I would have thought the idea of having garlic and tomato in a base then adding more in the curry pan would have been seen in your 30 years of curry cooking, from my limited experience of 25 years I've not seen much else.
No-one's questioning whether base sauces contain garlic and ginger or tomato paste and no-ones questioning that finished dishes can't contain those same two ingredients either. It is as you rightly point out, pretty standard for most BIR's for both those two things to contain those two same ingredients.
However, your base sauce is not standard, neither is the way you cook your final dish. However, your base sauce contains the same ingredients (in varying quantities) as most other base sauces. Onions, water, oil, garlic, ginger, tomato paste, whole spices cooked down and blended.
But the way you cook your final dish is quite different to the standard way a final dish would be cooked using a base sauce. You don't fry your garlic/ginger paste or your tomato paste in the same way as at the beginning of more conventional dishes, you merely drop it in the middle of cooking. The question is why? What effect is it having and why are you doing it differently?
Your suggestion that the second addition is not going to cook is, to my mind, incorrect. It does cook out and it does fry; it just happens to have other things there with it - to fry only needs heat and oil; just because it has other things doesn't mean that it won't fry IMHO.
Then you and I have quite different definitions of the term 'fry' and what affect that cooking method will have on the ingredients you're using.
-
Then you and I have quite different definitions of the term 'fry' and what affect that cooking method will have on the ingredients you're using.
There's no point in harping on about it, it works and that's what ultimately matters...doesn't it? You really need to try it (or Taz's which is a very similar method).
-
So the point youre making is what? You dont understand it because it isnt the way you do it? or because of youre incorrect point about the oil?
I was being sarcastic because you didn't understand my comment.
I fully understand the Taz method but (and I'll say it again) I don't like the amount of oil it uses (in the base) and the amount of oil it produces (in the final dish) due to the amount of reduction you need to do to fry the spices correctly.
I can produce equally good results using less oil by different methods. That's not the same as not understanding the Taz method, nor is it making an incorrect point about the oil.
If you like the Taz method because for you it produces good results, great! I don't like it for health reasons - we're all different.
-
There's no point in harping on about it, it works and that's what ultimately matters...doesn't it?
I'm not really saying it doesn't work. I'm saying, I don't understand why it works.
You really need to try it (or Taz's which is a very similar method).
I've tried the Taz method a long time ago and I agree it produces good results, but I still didn't like the amount of oil it produced. There's a major difference between how the two techniques work though, the Taz method uses a lot of reduction to fry the spices, to the point the oil separates from the sauce.
I saw very little reduction going on in this glasgow base (for the simple reason that far less was used to begin with) which is the basis for my comments as to how the g/g, tomato and spices were cooked and fried. I saw no separation of the oil from the base sauce. With the Taz method you get pools of oil, this is what the spices fry in, I saw none in this one.
How does the g/g, tomato paste/spices etc fry in oil if so little of it is separating from the sauce?
-
However, your base sauce is not standard, neither is the way you cook your final dish
Again spicey, your using a tiny sample of available information to arrive at that statement.Large samples provide more precise answers..but we don't have large samples of bir info available. Most of whats available come from a tiny number of sources, the vast majority being Bangladeshi/Bengali, which may differ slightly in method & seldom in ingredient, from Pakistani/Punjabi, of which there is hardly anything available. From the small amount available from Pakistani kitchens(most of Scotland), there is a familiarity in method & ingredient, hence this method...taz included
Dipuraja(well documented on here), adds a pile of ingredients to a cold pan in one of his vids ???
ELW
-
Thanks for making and posting the videos Martin, interesting to see a different approach and for those who are not interested in making the Glasgow base, it's useful to get a view of what kind of curries can be produced.
-
If you like the Taz method because for you it produces good results, great! I don't like it for health reasons - we're all different.
thats my point, someone on here measured it and it uses less oil per curry than other bases which then use 2 to 3 tablespoons of oil in the start of the curry
-
I saw no separation of the oil from the base sauce. With the Taz method you get pools of oil, this is what the spices fry in, I saw none in this one.
How does the g/g, tomato paste/spices etc fry in oil if so little of it is separating from the sauce?
Well that's my biggest gripe about the Glasgow base method, i.e. I did not achieve any oil separation and the curries tasted greasy as a consequence. But therein probably lies the answer to your question. If the base doesn't give up the oil it's doing some work in the cooking process which is why the ingredients, counterintuitively, do cook out.
-
I was edited for a friendly (moderated)
Ah but you see you weren't being a friendly (moderated) :o ;D
-
But therein probably lies the answer to your question. If the base doesn't give up the oil it's doing some work in the cooking process which is why the ingredients, counterintuitively, do cook out.
And that's probably where we will have to agree to disagree and why I've been somewhat persistent in my questions.
If the oil isn't separating, then there's still water in the sauce as oil will only separate once the water moisture has been cooked off and evaporated. That's precisely why the oil separates from the oil/water emulsion created in the pan.
If there's still water in the sauce the spice essential oils, garlic/ginger etc will not be fried by the oil and the oil will not carry all their flavours. Oil is the primary flavour carrier here.
So this seems a flawed methodology to me and precisely why g/g, tomato paste and spices are fried till the oil separates in conventional BIR curries.
-
Again spicey, your using a tiny sample of available information to arrive at that statement.
Nonsense.
Pretty much every single curry I've ever made in my entire lifetime starts out with frying either onions, an onion puree or garlic/ginger paste in hot oil, followed by the spices. And that methodology is followed by thousands of cooks of Indian food in home kitchens as well as restaurants.
To not do so is the exception. That's not to say all dishes follow that route, because they don't, but the vast majority of them do and there's sound and proven reasons for doing so.
That's hardly a small sample.
-
Just a small question for George so hopefully help with your work load regarding editing
I was edited for a friendly B#####d but a not so Friendly Bollocks is fine
I haven't a problem its just so I don't make the same mistake again and waste your time
Cheers Michael T
+ 1. Total inconsistency. If your face fits I suppose. ;)
-
an onion puree or garlic/ginger paste in hot oil
Thats exactly what you'll be doing if you decide to make this curry base ;)
-
Thats exactly what you'll be doing if you decide to make this curry base ;)
Well, given the huge onion ratio of this base sauce I would agree. It can only be this that's making it work!
It's intriguing because I've been contemplating making quite a large onion ratio base sauce for a while now.
-
If the oil isn't separating, then there's still water in the sauce as oil will only separate once the water moisture has been cooked off and evaporated. That's precisely why the oil separates from the oil/water emulsion created in the pan.
Nonsense. The bulk of a curry is made up of tomato and onions which are about 90% water. If you drove off all the water you'd be left with a tiny dry dollop sitting in the pan.
If there's still water in the sauce the spice essential oils, garlic/ginger etc will not be fried by the oil and the oil will not carry all their flavours. Oil is the primary flavour carrier here.
But it's not the only one because, contrary to your assertion, there is a lot of water in the finished curry no matter which method you use.
So this seems a flawed methodology to me and precisely why g/g, tomato paste and spices are fried till the oil separates in conventional BIR curries.
Again, for the third time, make it and then comment.
-
Nonsense. The bulk of a curry is made up of tomato and onions which are about 90% water. If you drove off all the water you'd be left with a tiny dry dollop sitting in the pan.
Not nonsense at all, it's scientific fact.
However you seem to know it all. How about you give me your non nonsense explanation for why oil separates from the mixture if it isn't due to water evaporation and removal.
Off you go smarty pants.
-
Are you sure your allowed to say smarty pants
because I'm not anymore
-
Not nonsense at all, it's scientific fact.
Show me the science.
How about you give me your non nonsense explanation for why oil separates from the mixture if it isn't due to water evaporation and removal.
How about I don't until you explain why, when we know the vast bulk (80-90%) of the contents of the pan are water, we don't end up with a 20% solid blob after (as you claim) all the water has been forced out?
-
Show me the science.
I've already explained to you why!
When you heat up (or cook) a vegetable that contains water or in this instance a puree of onion, garlic, ginger, tomato puree, spices, oil, water etc., it releases all that water that you refer to and initially creates an emulsion (a mixture of all those elements, water and oil) in the pan so you don't see them as separate elements. The water evaporates as vapour and steam as you heat and cook it.
When you do a base sauce (or any sauce) reduction, what do you think comes out of the sauce and where do you think it goes? Or are you going to contend that too? This is empirical, we know it reduces significantly from the volume we start with and we know that it's water that's evaporating from it.
When enough, (usually most) of the water has evaporated from the mixture the initial oil/water emulsion created breaks (because there's now not enough water to hold it together) and the oil separates from the now virtually waterless mixture.
If you're going to contend this, I'm looking forward to your explanation of exactly what disappears from a sauce when we reduce it and where this thing actually goes to!
How about I don't until you explain why, when we know the vast bulk (80-90%) of the contents of the pan are water
Because it's not 80-90% and water only evaporates when it's heated. Your maths are FUBAR'd.
Over to you, for your explanation.
-
It's impossible to argue a point with someone who lacks common sense, never mind a realistic grasp of the science spicey, so I won't try to.
What I will say though is this; when we make a base it is mostly water and, after blending (forming a colloidal suspension), the base is usually cooked on until the oil separates and appears on the surface. Perhaps you'd like to give that some thought as you ponder your 'the oil only separates when the water is removed' theory!
-
It's impossible to argue a point with someone who lacks common sense, never mind a realistic grasp of the science spicey, so I won't try to.
I see. So now I'm stupid and don't understand science, despite a perfectly rational and logical explanation of the scientific (water evaporation and emulsion breaking) reasons for why oil separates.
And the best you can come up with is...
...the base is usually cooked on until the oil separates and appears on the surface.
::)
Perhaps you'd like to give that some thought as you ponder your 'the oil only separates when the water is removed' theory!
Perhaps, I'll just go away and have a good chuckle and leave you in your ignorance at how you've not given any explanation for how and why sauces with water in them reduce and leave you to ponder the reason for why if you continue to cook after oil separation has occurred and without stirring, the sauce will stick and burn to the bottom of the pan! ::)
Perhaps it's because there's no water left to stop it from happening? Nah far too rational and logical!
-
a perfectly rational and logical explanation of the scientific (water evaporation and emulsion breaking) reasons for why oil separates.
I agree, it seems perfectly rationale and reasonable to me...and I think SS well knows it.
-
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the oil separates from the blended base after continued cooking, when we know the water content is vastly more than the oil content (that's common sense, no science needed - I hope).
Your theory rather hinges on an explanation so...
-
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the oil separates from the blended base after continued cooking, when we know the water content is vastly more than the oil content (that's common sense, no science needed - I hope)
You've already had this explanation now, twice.
If you don't understand it, fair enough, but I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing over and over. Particularly not something that I know with 100% certainty to be 100% correct.
So far you've come up with jack (moderated) to refute it, over above what you think to be common sense.
What's even more shocking, is someone who's been cooking this stuff for as long as you have to have zero understanding of the processes involved!
-
So you still assert that the oil separates from the curry when all the water has been removed but can't explain why in the base, where the water exceeds the oil content by roughly an order of magnitude, that the oil still separates from the water. When you actually explain the contradiction (which, despite your protestation, you have not) we can move on.
By the way, I don't have to come up with anything (yet). You're the one making the assertion and not backing it up when presented with an obvious contradiction.
-
When you actually explain the contradiction
It's not a contradiction, you just can't get your head round it. In other words you can't figure it out for yourself and need me to keep on explaining it to you.
Yet you've got the cheek imply I'm stupid?
The principle is exactly the same with the big stock pot of base sauce as it is with the frying pan, only this time the emulsion (water + oil) is only created on the surface. The water evaporates from the surface, the emulsion breaks and bingo the oil separates.
The water evaporation and emulsion breaking is only taking place on the surface - not throughout the entire stock pot of base sauce, which is why you can't figure it out, because you assume it's taking place through the entire stock pot. It isn't, it's only happening on the surface, where the water is evaporating from!
Stir that oil back into the base and it disappears (the emulsion has been broken) continue cooking it and more water will evaporate and the emulsion creates and breaks again. The oil that separates is only happening on the surface it doesn't extend down to the bottom of the stock pot.
When cooking in a frying pan, you only have a thin coating of sauce and the same thing happens only this time all the water evaporates breaking the emulsion and separating the oil.
Are you happy now? ::)
-
So you still assert that the oil separates from the curry when all the water has been removed but can't explain why in the base, where the water exceeds the oil content by roughly an order of magnitude, that the oil still separates from the water.
You make a good point, SS.
Perhaps it's because the particulates in the particulate/water/oil mix initially absorb the oil, which then "separates" from the mix, with the application of heat, by some sort of transport mechanism, due to the immiscibility of oil in water?
Why do you think it's the case (which, as you say, seems to be the case)?
-
The principle is exactly the same with the big stock pot of base sauce as it is with the frying pan, only this time the emulsion (water + oil) is only created on the surface. The water evaporates from the surface, the emulsion breaks and bingo the oil separates.
Now that sounds plausible..... :)
-
Now that sounds plausible..... :)
Don't you start! ;)
-
Yet another thread destroyed with unnecessary bile and vitriol.
A new visitor to this forum reading any number of threads full of this constant, combative, point scoring is unlikely to ever return.
It also drives away many great contributors, fed up with being attacked for each contribution they make, in common with every other forum out there that is not strictly moderated.
Thanks to Martin for providing the vids and the recipe.
-
Yet another thread destroyed with unnecessary bile and vitriol.
Yes, you're absolutely right in what you say and I must hold my hand up as being one of the main culprits - guilty as charged, for which I'm happy to apologise.
Sorry Martin for derailing your thread in this way.
-
Whoa, Late night, hic. this threads been trashed
Yes, I think a similar approach was used by an Indian chef in one of Madhur Jaffrey's programmes in the Curry Nation series.
Manzil Restaurant George, No nothing like it fella.
Kooko, after a years hiatus from posting, your back with the same idiotic attitude.
Asking the question why, then writing reams of rubbish on why you think whoever is wrong and you know better, when in reality your not even on first base.
(Smarty Pants) that sounds a bit Gay or Female
(Yet you've got the cheek imply I'm stupid?) Lol ;D ;D ;D Classic, We should have a poll on that one.
SS
The original bb1 recipe has that much oil and less water, when cooked for a such a long time
it produces a congealed oily mass (onion sauce) for the oil to separate from this it needs water.
The waters been boiled off, leaving half a pot of gloop. (It looks like wallpaper paste)
Scientific Bit
Oil is a nonpolar liquid, its atoms don't attract the atoms of a polar substance, such as water.
Anyhoo - Thanks for sharing your vids Martin.
With your mods, it looks better than bb1 and if this style of curry is what your after, It's your Nirvana.
Curry on....Chewy
http://youtu.be/_mT5YZ5cEhc (http://youtu.be/_mT5YZ5cEhc)
-
The principle is exactly the same with the big stock pot of base sauce as it is with the frying pan, only this time the emulsion (water + oil) is only created on the surface. The water evaporates from the surface, the emulsion breaks and bingo the oil separates.
Now that sounds plausible..... :)
It does doesn't it, until you give it a little more thought. When you've made a base and left it to cool you've undoubtedly noticed that the oil layer increases (and covers the whole surface). This happens as the pan cools, so there's no evaporation as spicey claims and yet the oil continues to collect. The same thing often happens when you put a particularly oily curry into a takeaway container, i.e. there's a bigger slick of oil after a given time than there was initially.
If, as spicey claims, the separation of the oil from the curry is due to evaporation of the water I'd want to see some evidence in the scientific literature for it.
He also continues to make the absurd claim that for the oil to separate from the curry all the water must be driven out. That's pure BS. If you want to know what a curry taken to that degree of water separation is like just open a jar of any Patak's paste because that's what you'd get.
-
I reckon the question is an interesting one. I, for one, would be interested in hearing others' views and understanding it further. I don't think anyone has expressed an "absurd claim" or an "idiotic attitude" (so far).
But it's undoubtedly more appropriate to start a new thread than to continue to derail this one. Anyone?
-
Whoa, Late night, hic. this threads been trashed
ooko, after a years hiatus from posting, your back with the same idiotic attitude.
Asking the question why, then writing reams of rubbish on why you think whoever is wrong and you know better, when in reality your not even on first base.
Coming from someone that doesn't appear to understand that scum forming on the surface of base sauce is actually coagulated lipoproteins and not impurities created by boiling and oil separation (as you wrongly claim) you'll have to forgive me for ignoring any rubbish you continue (and have always) peddled on here.
It's quite unbelievable what utter nonsense some of you people come out with. But I can understand why they become hostile when they're shown up to be ignorant.
What utter rubbish:
....because like any scum its the impurities created by the boiling process and in this case oil separation. It really is hard to believe some people think it has a value and a good taste.
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with oil separation and everything to do with:
No it isn't, impurities that is.
It's actually coagulated lipoproteins, proteins combined with lipids (fats). Proteins when combined with lipids when boiled coagulate and have a lower density than oil and water and so float to the surface. The only effect they have on stock or base gravy is to make it cloudy. Given that base gravy is opaque anyway, they really don't make any difference whether you stir them back in or skim them off.
http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,8956.msg89255.html#msg89255 (http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,8956.msg89255.html#msg89255)
And if you don't believe me, which you won't, because you're now in reputation damage limitation mode, (just like someone else in this thread) do a google search on it and find out for yourself what the correct answer is. Just to help you, the key words you want are scum and lipoproteins.
-
When you've made a base and left it to cool you've undoubtedly noticed that the oil layer increases (and covers the whole surface). This happens as the pan cools, so there's no evaporation as spicey claims and yet the oil continues to collect.
If the pan is warmer than the surrounding air temperature water evaporation will still continue.
Or do I now need to explain the scientific theory of water evaporation to you?
-
When you've made a base and left it to cool you've undoubtedly noticed that the oil layer increases (and covers the whole surface). This happens as the pan cools, so there's no evaporation as spicey claims and yet the oil continues to collect.
If the pan is warmer than the surrounding air temperature water evaporation will still continue.
No it won't because there's an oil film covering it which prevents that occuring. You really are grasping at straws my friend. Oh, don't forget, I'm hoping that you'll provide a reference that supports this theory of yours.
P.S. for someone who claims to understand the science involved you do ask some basic questions - don't you? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28832/oil-separating-from-fried-onion-spice-mixture-why-does-it-happen (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28832/oil-separating-from-fried-onion-spice-mixture-why-does-it-happen) ;D ;D
-
Yet another thread destroyed with unnecessary bile and vitriol. A new visitor to this forum reading any number of threads full of this constant, combative, point scoring is unlikely to ever return. It also drives away many great contributors, fed up with being attacked for each contribution they make, in common with every other forum out there that is not strictly moderated.
Could you please re-post this on a daily basis, Dajoca, until the message finally gets through ?
Thanks to Martin for providing the vids and the recipe.
Agreed.
** Phil.
-
You're being a trifle rude and ignorant now guys.
It's an interesting "discussion". Why not take it to another thread and discuss it properly?
http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,11572.msg89640.html#msg89640 (http://www.curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php/topic,11572.msg89640.html#msg89640)
-
You're being a triffle rude and ignorant now guys.
Pot calling the kettle black! Absolute classic. ;D
-
Yet another thread destroyed with unnecessary bile and vitriol.
A new visitor to this forum reading any number of threads full of this constant, combative, point scoring is unlikely to ever return.
It also drives away many great contributors, fed up with being attacked for each contribution they make, in common with every other forum out there that is not strictly moderated.
Thanks to Martin for providing the vids and the recipe.
Some people would know what you mean but is this thread all bad? I suggest not. It's an interesting debate, not that I claim to know the answer. I just think it's a pity that anyone decides to use 'banned' words and personal insults from time to time. Please leave them out. You know the words that are not allowed in a Court of Law or anywhere where reasonable standards are upheld.
As for 'strict moderation' do you really think that's better? I don't think so.
I agree with you that thanks are due to Martin for providing the videos and recipe.
-
SS
The original bb1 recipe has that much oil and less water, when cooked for a such a long time
it produces a congealed oily mass (onion sauce) for the oil to separate from this it needs water.
The waters been boiled off, leaving half a pot of gloop. (It looks like wallpaper paste)
http://youtu.be/_mT5YZ5cEhc (http://youtu.be/_mT5YZ5cEhc)
This is the reason why i dont like this method. All you are doing is pushing a large mass of dry paste around the pan. The only way things can fry down properly and for the oil to separate easily is by adding water!
(and yes, i have tried this dry method.)
If, like BB1 says, (or Boaby,Fred, Alex,James, all the members of wet wet wet or whoever he currently is :P) No oil is added and nothing needs to be fried down, then this method isn't that different from a jar of cook-in sauce. All components can be cooked separately then added together for storage until heated in a frying pan. I dont see any difference between the first ladle and 2nd, 3rd etc.
Two questions:
Why fry onion or pepper in oil first if there is enough oil in the first ladle?
and
Can you brown the G/G paste?
Cheers, Frank. :)
-
Hi DP,
Not sure if I have the answers - I just cooked a simple curry!
I added a smidgen of oil to the onion in the video purely because I thought that it would need it to brown off the onion - no other reason.
Could I brown the g/g using this method? Probably not but IMHO just as chicken skin will brown if heated soley in oil, it also cooks when its placed in boiling water; I assume then that the g/g and tom paste are cooking but probably not it the classic way that it would be if added to oil at the start of the process.
I know what a finished curry tastes like and this tastes like a finished curry when I've made it. I don't know if others have done it wrong or it just didin't suit there taste, etc. I've not cooked out spices and had raw spice in dishes before and know the difference. I regret I can't add more than this as my outlook, thankfully is very simple: If I like it, that's all that matters.
Regards and thanks for a question related to the video - been a while ;)
-
Hi DP,
Not sure if I have the answers - I just cooked a simple curry!
I added a smidgen of oil to the onion in the video purely because I thought that it would need it to brown off the onion - no other reason.
Could I brown the g/g using this method? Probably not but IMHO just as chicken skin will brown if heated soley in oil, it also cooks when its placed in boiling water; I assume then that the g/g and tom paste are cooking but probably not it the classic way that it would be if added to oil at the start of the process.
I know what a finished curry tastes like and this tastes like a finished curry when I've made it. I don't know if others have done it wrong or it just didin't suit there taste, etc. I've not cooked out spices and had raw spice in dishes before and know the difference. I regret I can't add more than this as my outlook, thankfully is very simple: If I like it, that's all that matters.
Regards and thanks for a question related to the video - been a while ;)
Thank you Martin. ;)
I found out recently that all Scottish TA's do this "sell every type of fast food possible". I bet some probably do Chinese too! ;D
It would be a shame if the restaurants up there also use this lazy method of cooking. I hope thats not the case and there are still plenty of skilled chefs cooking the traditional way.
People often talk about the difference between Scottish curries and curries south of the border, but is there also a difference between a Scottish TA and a Scottish BIR?
Could the difference just be Garlic and how its cooked??
Cheers, Frank. :)
-
Frank,
I would probably doubt the garlic is the difference between the 2. BIR in Scotland can and does taste different to this recipe, but not always. It has a familiarity of more than one establishment so it is fairly widespread I think. It may be a 'lazy' way to cook a curry but when I was eating these before I got into cooking them the method was irrelevant to me - I just wanted to replicate it; arguably the simplicity adds to the chance of consistency? I don't know!
I remember Panpot's postings on the Ashoka, a fairly famous chain of restaurants around Scotland, from memory they used a method similar to most (oil in first, etc) but I think they generally use less powders up there - no mix and no chilli powder - preferring blitzed fresh. The notion of using little or no oil at the start does make some sense insomuch as there is less to cook out (spice or mix). I 'get' the thoughts about the garlic & ginger and tomato paste not cooking but when I've eaten the dishes cooked I'm just not noticing this at all. It all makes me wonder what people here would have thought of the restaurant curries up there if they'd known the method was easier than they'd expected.
Regards,
Martin
-
Hi Frank/Martin, the difference is definitley linked to business model & location. Ta's or "kebab shops" are often situated near pubs, where the clientele, footfall & rates dictate the price, quality & general time and effort spent on food to turn a proft.I saw rolls of "Mystery Meat" donner kebab rolls being delivered from a Mitchells self drive hire van with no fridge in Glasgow once. I wouldn't touch that stuff if you put a gun to my head
The Glasgow t/a's in my experience are often guilty of knocking out similar tasting curries right across their menu, often cooked by Middle Eastern's rather than Asians.
Some Pakistani restaurants are also guilty of this, but the better known places would never survive. I would guess only that the all in method would be pretty popular in the ta's. Nobody is checking the tomato paste has caramelised correctly in Govan or Shettleston.
The quality restaurants here serve food that no recipe on here comes close to :-\..almost an addictive like quality to it
Interesting thing about the Ashoka(im not sure if you have been in), is that their food tastes nothing like the other restaurants I use. I find its fairly unique interms of flavour, even in their buffet joints. It's a chain within an even larger group, but there has definitely been a formula created for Ashoka restaurants.
Like Martin, if my efforts get there, then i'm happy either way-if i can cut some oil & salt along the way so much the better
Regards
ELW
-
Yet another thread destroyed with unnecessary bile and vitriol. A new visitor to this forum reading any number of threads full of this constant, combative, point scoring is unlikely to ever return. It also drives away many great contributors, fed up with being attacked for each contribution they make, in common with every other forum out there that is not strictly moderated.
Could you please re-post this on a daily basis, Dajoca, until the message finally gets through ?
Thanks to Martin for providing the vids and the recipe.
Agreed.
** Phil.
As a newcomer, I totally agree with the above as well. I can't believe how much animosity can be caused over what is basically a pan of onions, spices and oil. I've had curries from the length and breadth of Britain for over 40 years and there is a difference throughout in my opinion. I would think that a lot of people on here are trying to recreate a similar meal or better to whats available to them locally. I started with Dips recipes which some people didn't give much hope for before trying but then he came out good in the group tests. People should try before they comment. For me BB1 just bought another way of doing curries and if he worked in a TA (same as Dip) and is selling his stuff, who are we to argue. I've tried Dips Base which I had quite a bit of success with for a first attempt, I'm now on CA's which is going well ( 6 happy chappies at work the other night) and next I'll try the Glasgow base which will be in a couple of weeks.
And on a humorous point for those complaing about the oil, what on earth did you expect from the city which invented the Stonner (http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/article.php/20060630015057755)