Pork Chops with a Piquant Sauce

This is the third recipe from Gordon Ramsay that I've tried, and I must say I really like his flavours. The dishes always turn out light but still very satisfying. This recipe combines the refreshing taste of herbs with the natural flavors of pork, and turns up the heat with a playful hint of spiciness in the sauce.

Chef Ramsay's video recipe calls for 10 min of baking time in the oven, but I take about 15 min at home. When done medium, chops should be thoroughly cooked on the outside while being a little pink on the inside. Interestingly, the USDA recommends pork to be cooked to an internal temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius for us non-Americans), so do give your meat a thermometer poke if it concerns you at all!

Recipe (from Times Online) :

4 pork chops, about 250g each

a little olive oil plus extra to drizzle

few thyme sprigs

few rosemary sprigs (leaves only)

1/2 head of garlic, separated into cloves (unpeeled)

sea salt and black pepper

Sauce:

3 tsp olive oil

1 large onion, peeled and finely chopped

1 red pepper, deseeded and finely chopped

1 red chilli, deseeded and finely chopped

200g chestnut mushrooms, trimmed and finely sliced

400g can chopped tomatoes

sea salt and black pepper

1tsp caster sugar

1 Heat the oven to 200°C/Gas 6. Place the pork chops in a large, lightly oiled baking dish and scatter over the thyme sprigs, rosemary leaves, garlic cloves and salt. Drizzle with a little olive oil and bake for 20 minutes or until the pork chops are cooked through.

2 Make the sauce in the meantime. Heat the olive oil in a wide pan and add the onion, red pepper, chilli and mushrooms. Stir over a high heat for 3–4 minutes until the vegetables begin to soften.

3 Tip in the tomatoes. Season with salt and pepper and add the sugar and a splash of water. Simmer for 10–12 minutes until the onions are tender and the tomato sauce has thickened. Taste and adjust the seasoning.

4 Take the chops out of the oven and leave to rest in a warm place for 5 minutes. Then, pour any pan juices into the sauce and reheat. Ladle a generous amount of sauce over the chops to serve

Gramercy Tavern

I rarely have the inclination to write about my dining experiences when there are no nice pictures to accompany the text with. I feel that my descriptions alone cannot poignantly present to the reader what I saw, felt, and tasted, and that dilutes the overall experience one gets when visiting any dining establishment. Anticipating the meal, arriving at the establishment, being greeted by the maitre d', perusing the menu and then ordering, being served and finally tasting the food are all integral components of the whole dining process. Yes, dining is not just eating to me; it is a pastime, a budding passion, and - if all things fall in place - a heck of an enjoyment. That is why even though the photographs I took for this post were nowhere near decent, I have to write because the experience was really quite something.

Last Friday, a bunch of pals and I finally visited Gramercy Tavern for lunch. Upon arrival, we were greeted by the aroma of freshly baked pastries which tremendously whetted my appetite. We were seated at a round table in the middle of the main dining room not long after, and I fell in love with Danny Meyer's concept of casual fine-dining. The decor was tavern-themed and then jazzed up slightly to exude a classy but not snobbish ambiance. I liked how the warm lighting made me feel very invited and comfortable, as compared to other very well-lit restaurants. Of course, dim lighting is the bane of well-exposed photographs, but this is one trade off I'll gladly make. Because of the poor lighting conditions, I don't have any pictures of the Michelin-starred restaurant to show, but you can always visit Gramercy Tavern's homepage to see what I mean.

When the food arrived, my gut feeling told me to snap a few shots for remembrance's sake. The photos suck, but the food was fantastic. My starter, main course, and dessert were all executed flawlessly. The dishes were, in Gordon Ramsay's words, spot on. The fish and lamb were cooked to perfection, and seasoned just right. The pickled onion vinaigrette's acidity cut through the trout's smokiness to give the dish more dimension, and the slightly sweet cippollini puree brought everything together.


I especially enjoyed my main course. The braised shoulder of lamb was not only super moist and tender, but was also bursting with flavour. The vegetables at the side helped in resting my taste buds, but I could have gone on and on with the meat. This dish was deeply satisfying for the meat-lover that I am.


Dessert of a warm chocolate pecan tart and vanilla bean bourbon ice cream was simple but excellent nevertheless. As with all tarts, the pastry can either make or break the dish. This one was buttery and slightly crunchy, exactly the way I like it.


We finished with petit fours consisting of macarons and chocolates. Needless to say, I left my table impressed, happy, and wishing I had visited this fine establishment earlier.

Misseline Stars

There is this curious thing called the Michelin Guide. You might have correctly guessed from the very recognizable picture above that this guide was started by the very same company that makes car tyres. I can't recall the first time I heard about Michelin stars, but it was some years back, probably on the tv, magazine, or newspapers. Anyway, I never really thought much about them until I started attending school at Columbia. Then it suddenly struck me that New York city was a food paradise by many's standards, and while surfing the net one day I stumbled upon the Michelin Guide for the Big Apple.

If you haven't heard yet, this little guide of French origin is big. Restaurants and chefs have risen to international fame because they were awarded the coveted star(s). Rumour has it that a chef committed suicide because he heard that Michelin had intended to remove one of his restaurant's three stars. As you can see, being awarded stars is a huge deal in the culinary scene.

Interior of The Greenhouse

Now, since these awards are so widely sought-after and so prestigious, how does the guide go about reviewing restaurants? According to the official website, the guide takes into account only what goes onto the plate - the food is the only thing that matters in a review. Food is rated by a team of trained professionals who have "culinary or hospitality industry background", and i quote the five measures they use: quality of product, mastery of flavour and cooking, personality of cuisine, value for money, and consistency between visits. Obviously, one's palate might differ from the other, and people can have different perceptions on abstract qualities like "mastery" and "personality", but such is the nature of taste and this method is really the best practically available one.

The next logical question is how many stars can a restaurant possibly get, and what does the star quantity mean? Again, i quote: one star (a very good restaurant in its category), two stars (excellent cooking and worth a detour), and a maximum of three stars (exceptional cuisine and worth the journey). This year there are only six restaurants in the US that can claim ownership to three stars, and four of them are in Manhattan. Because this guide had been European-centric until recent years, there are many great food nations out there that have not been reviewed, but I suspect things will change quite soon.

Now, would you not expect to be wowed when dining at a Michelin-starred establishment? I don't know about you but I sure do each and every time I visit one. Regrettably only one out of the four restaurants were up to standards, at least from what I tasted. To be clear, I am far from being a qualified candidate to be hired by Michelin, and I have my own prejudices when it comes to food (but so does everyone else), so what I say could be blasphemy to you but hey, the food went into my mouth and not anyone else's. And to be doubly clear, I visited each of the four restaurants only once and sampled only a couple of dishes each time, so that tells you how much statistical power my opinion bears.

I don't like going on and on about food that didn't impress me, but I think it's only fair to list the three restaurants in New York that I thought were overrated: Jean Georges (French, lunch), Oceana (seafood, restaurant week dinner), and Peter Luger (steak). Don't get me wrong, these are establishments that serve excellent cuisine, but I feel they're not at the level where Michelin claims they are. The only restaurant that I thought deserves its star is The Greenhouse in Mayfair, London. All pictures shown in this post (minus the Michelin man) were taken there.

Clockwise from top left: champagne, pumpkin bread, foie gras partridge terrine with chocolate sauce reduction, black olive madeleine with basil sorbet, petit fours, shellfish risotto with seaweed butter, amuse bouche.

Excellent presentation for every single dish and the flavors within each dish went very well together. Most interesting item was definitely the basil sorbet and the amuse bouche was most impressive. The terrine was rich but not overpowering and while the perfectly-cooked risotto was slightly salty, the shellfish's freshness really came through.