Topic: Takeaway/Restaurant Madras - That special something

[Peripatetic Phil]

Its a close one, too thin and its a bit boring but too thick and it turns sickly.  I look for the "lava" style craters which bubble away when it gets to the right consistancy.  When you put it on the rice it coats the rice really well but doesnt kind of disapear into the rice so you have dry looking rice if that makes any sense

OK, sounds as if we are aiming for much the same thickness : I shall watch for the "lava-style craters" next time, to see if I normally take it that far !

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

Its a close one, too thin and its a bit boring but too thick and it turns sickly.  I look for the "lava" style craters which bubble away when it gets to the right consistancy.  When you put it on the rice it coats the rice really well but doesnt kind of disapear into the rice so you have dry looking rice if that makes any sense

OK, sounds as if we are aiming for much the same thickness : I shall watch for the "lava-style craters" next time, to see if I normally take it that far !

** Phil.

Hmmm. The way I read it it seems that your ideas of the 'right' thickness are diametrically opposed.

Phil wants some adhesion to the chicken but not so much that the sauce doesn't run off. Daveeb wants the sauce thick enough that it doesn't flow into the rice. Contrary requirements don't you think?

For what it's worth I'm with Phil (I think). Curries should basically be runny such that they flow into the rice. If they are so thick that they don't then they are, or in my opinion should be, a speciality such as bhuna or balti.

[Peripatetic Phil]

Hmmm. The way I read it it seems that your ideas of the 'right' thickness are diametrically opposed.  Phil wants some adhesion to the chicken but not so much that the sauce doesn't run off. Daveeb wants the sauce thick enough that it doesn't flow into the rice. Contrary requirements don't you think? 

Well.  I don't think we're diametrically opposed, but we might be at different points on a continuum.  I was really basing my answer on Dave's "too thin and its a bit boring but too thick and it turns sickly"; that is exactly what I am aiming for, too.  But I may well have misunderstood the "coats the rice really well but doesn't kind of disapear into the rice".  By "disappear into the rice", I thought (probably wrongly) that Dave was talking about it being /absorbed/ by the rice; but the way that you (Santa) put it, it is not absorption that is taking place but capillary attraction : the sauce flows between the grains, not into them.  So if that interpretation is correct, then yes, Dave & I are at different points on the continuum : I want my sauce to flow between the rice grains (but I don't want them to absorb the sauce).  Dave ?

** Phil.

[daveeb]

Its all about preference I suppose, the thickness between us is probably not too different (just describing it is hard!)

Probably a good way to think about it is the difference between a takeaway madras in a foil tray and a restaurant version in the small balti dish, the takeaway has lots of sauce and is quite runny wheras the restaurant is a bit thicker and more intense - thats where I would say mine is once I see those craters.

The slow bubbling "lava" craters are really just telling me that the base in the sauce has been fried due to the excessive oil and has caramalised/sweetened - Im getting hungry now!!