Paris advice

I remember how disappointed I was the first time I saw the Mona Lisa at
the Louve. There was an enormous crowd of Japanese tourists, so that
you couldnt get near the little painting. What's worse, the painting
was behind glass and, despite the prohibition, there was a steady stream
of camera flashes that completely obscured my view.

Howard

Michael Brennan wrote:

Yes the Louvre is enormous. Made the mistake of trying to see the Mona Lisa
on the first Sunday of August last year, when museums are free. It was
not a very pleasant experience. The musee D'Orsay on the other hand was
wonderful, even with lots of crowds, I am referring to the 4th floor in the
Hall of the Impressionists.

--mikeb

In article ,
Plasma wrote:

Darlene,

Maybe you did make the right decisions. You can see the Eiffel Tower and
Notre Dame in an hour or so each but the Louvre takes several hours just to
survey the halls let alone really see anything. A full day is really
required at the Louvre.

Mike

"Darlene Hinton" wrote in message
news:5b78b328216b42dc5bd1183ba29db1b7.51473@myga te.mailgate.org...

Just came back from a European cruise which was awesome (and exhasting!)
A little word of advice to anyone who takes an excursion to Paris in the
future. Pick 2 and ONLY 2 places you want to see. Time is very limited.
I tried to see the Eiffel Tower, Notre dame, and the Louvre. In hind
sight I would have skipped Notre dame (which i did see)
and spent that time at the Louvre (which I only saw the outside of) I
was extremely disappointed and I hope this helps others from making the
same mistake.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I agree. I too was kinda disappointed when I saw the Mona Lisa.

Sue ---saw Rembrandt's Nigh****ch last weekend and was in awe of such
an impressive painting

Howard Garland wrote:

I remember how disappointed I was the first time I saw the Mona Lisa at
the Louve. There was an enormous crowd of Japanese tourists, so that
you couldnt get near the little painting. What's worse, the painting
was behind glass and, despite the prohibition, there was a steady stream
of camera flashes that completely obscured my view.

Howard

Michael Brennan wrote:

Yes the Louvre is enormous. Made the mistake of trying to see the Mona Lisa
on the first Sunday of August last year, when museums are free. It was
not a very pleasant experience. The musee D'Orsay on the other hand was
wonderful, even with lots of crowds, I am referring to the 4th floor in the
Hall of the Impressionists.

--mikeb

In article ,
Plasma wrote:

Darlene,

Maybe you did make the right decisions. You can see the Eiffel Tower and
Notre Dame in an hour or so each but the Louvre takes several hours just to
survey the halls let alone really see anything. A full day is really
required at the Louvre.

Mike

"Darlene Hinton" wrote in message
news:5b78b328216b42dc5bd1183ba29db1b7.51473@myga te.mailgate.org...

Just came back from a European cruise which was awesome (and exhasting!)
A little word of advice to anyone who takes an excursion to Paris in the
future. Pick 2 and ONLY 2 places you want to see. Time is very limited.
I tried to see the Eiffel Tower, Notre dame, and the Louvre. In hind
sight I would have skipped Notre dame (which i did see)
and spent that time at the Louvre (which I only saw the outside of) I
was extremely disappointed and I hope this helps others from making the
same mistake.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Sue ---saw Rembrandt's Nigh****ch last weekend and was in awe of such
an impressive painting

I, too, was in awe last month when I saw the painting in Amsterdam.

Just an aside. While exiting Notre Dame we were approached by a vendor
trying to sell us ahem, cough, cough, the kinda pictures you wouldnt
want your kids to see

SUNNY.........was amazed how the Mona Lisa's eyes kept following her

S'nd I

To me, the real treasure in the Louvre is the 2 Michelangelo Sculptures
that are quietly hidden in the basement. The day we were there, I don't
even remember anyone else in the room with us. Back then (17 years ago
for our honeymoon) we were even allowed to touch the sculptures. You
could feel the muscles and veins carved by the artist into the Carerra
marble. Masterpieces by one of the top 3 geniuses in the history of the
world.

--Tom

Howard Garland wrote:

I remember how disappointed I was the first time I saw the Mona Lisa at
the Louve. There was an enormous crowd of Japanese tourists, so that
you couldnt get near the little painting. What's worse, the painting
was behind glass and, despite the prohibition, there was a steady stream
of camera flashes that completely obscured my view.

Howard

Michael Brennan wrote:

Yes the Louvre is enormous. Made the mistake of trying to see the Mona Lisa
on the first Sunday of August last year, when museums are free. It was
not a very pleasant experience. The musee D'Orsay on the other hand was
wonderful, even with lots of crowds, I am referring to the 4th floor in the
Hall of the Impressionists.

--mikeb

In article ,
Plasma wrote:

Darlene,

Maybe you did make the right decisions. You can see the Eiffel Tower and
Notre Dame in an hour or so each but the Louvre takes several hours just to
survey the halls let alone really see anything. A full day is really
required at the Louvre.

Mike

"Darlene Hinton" wrote in message
news:5b78b328216b42dc5bd1183ba29db1b7.51473@myga te.mailgate.org...

Just came back from a European cruise which was awesome (and exhasting!)
A little word of advice to anyone who takes an excursion to Paris in the
future. Pick 2 and ONLY 2 places you want to see. Time is very limited.
I tried to see the Eiffel Tower, Notre dame, and the Louvre. In hind
sight I would have skipped Notre dame (which i did see)
and spent that time at the Louvre (which I only saw the outside of) I
was extremely disappointed and I hope this helps others from making the
same mistake.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

I don't recall where I got the last crepe recipe I used. There really
wasn't all that much to it. Flour, melted butter, milk, egg. Sue's
probably right about the milk. We should probably keep some cream in the
house to make up for the 2% milk (which is mine - Sue uses skim).

Keeping the batter smooth enough, and thin enough, is one trick. It really
needs to end up looking like heavy cream, not batter. Which is hard when
you're used to American style pancake batter.

I'm not sure how I'm ever going to really duplicate the traditional cooking
method, because I'm never going to be able to get one of those big,
perfectly flat, griddles they use. I just use the biggest non-stick pan I
have and make the crepes a little smaller than I would prefer.

Hmm. I think I may need to try another batch or two this weekend to work on
my technique. We have a little nutella left. ;-)

joe

On 9/19/03 1:53 PM, in article , "Sue
Keenan" wrote:

I too agree the crepes were better in Paris, but I assummed it was
because we used 2% milk, instead of whole milk. Perhaps a nut flour
would be better to use also. As to how the crepes are made, I need to
defer your question to Joe, who's the chef in the family.

Sue

Mike Cordelli wrote:

I've got a ton of Nutella, it's available everywhere, but how do you make
your crepe? No matter what I try it's not the same as over there.

On 9/19/03 2:25 PM, in article ,
"TBird" wrote:

Oh yes, the crepes.... about $1.50 or less... and then, in 1984, as a
vegetarian with a limited French vocabulary, I would order "Pain et fromage.
Une verre du vin blanc." and get an incredible glass of white wine to wash
down
my hunk of brie on fresh french bread, and it cost at the time, a total of
$1.95USD.

Ah. Had that last Sunday at a sidewalk café in Amsterdam. Yum, yum.
Except I had a couple glasses of Le Chouf (sp?) beer instead of the wine.
Not as good as the Rodenbach I had Friday night, but pretty good.

joe

I found the secret for crepes is to use one of those "boat mixers", as
Emeril calls them, to really finely blend the batter mixture. You can't
have any lumps. And it has to be very thin. Thin enough so that when
you ladle a quarter cup of batter into the pan, the batter spreads out
into a think mixture if you lift the pan and twirl it around in a
circle. 2% milk works fine. You add about twice as much milk as for
pancakes.

I cook them in a square 11" x 11" Cephalon pan that I got at Fortunoff.
The pan has to be hot before you start. About a minute on one side
(till slightly brown), and 15 seconds or so on the other side.

I like to add cottage cheese and raspberry preserves when finished.
Roll them and heat them, with some more raspberry preserves on top,
melting and running over the sides.

Hmmm... I think know what's for breakfast tomorrow

--Tom --- who gave Barry Cunningham the world's best carrot cake recipe

Joe Keenan wrote:

I don't recall where I got the last crepe recipe I used. There really
wasn't all that much to it. Flour, melted butter, milk, egg. Sue's
probably right about the milk. We should probably keep some cream in the
house to make up for the 2% milk (which is mine - Sue uses skim).

Keeping the batter smooth enough, and thin enough, is one trick. It really
needs to end up looking like heavy cream, not batter. Which is hard when
you're used to American style pancake batter.

I'm not sure how I'm ever going to really duplicate the traditional cooking
method, because I'm never going to be able to get one of those big,
perfectly flat, griddles they use. I just use the biggest non-stick pan I
have and make the crepes a little smaller than I would prefer.

Hmm. I think I may need to try another batch or two this weekend to work on
my technique. We have a little nutella left. ;-)

joe

On 9/19/03 1:53 PM, in article , "Sue
Keenan" wrote:

I too agree the crepes were better in Paris, but I assummed it was
because we used 2% milk, instead of whole milk. Perhaps a nut flour
would be better to use also. As to how the crepes are made, I need to
defer your question to Joe, who's the chef in the family.

Sue

Mike Cordelli wrote:

I've got a ton of Nutella, it's available everywhere, but how do you make
your crepe? No matter what I try it's not the same as over there.

"Joe Keenan" wrote in message
...
I don't recall where I got the last crepe recipe I used. There really
wasn't all that much to it. Flour, melted butter, milk, egg. Sue's
probably right about the milk. We should probably keep some cream in the
house to make up for the 2% milk (which is mine - Sue uses skim).

Keeping the batter smooth enough, and thin enough, is one trick. It
really
needs to end up looking like heavy cream, not batter. Which is hard when
you're used to American style pancake batter.

I'm not sure how I'm ever going to really duplicate the traditional
cooking
method, because I'm never going to be able to get one of those big,
perfectly flat, griddles they use. I just use the biggest non-stick pan I
have and make the crepes a little smaller than I would prefer.

Hmm. I think I may need to try another batch or two this weekend to work
on
my technique. We have a little nutella left. ;-)

joe

The trick to a really good crepe is allowing the batter to stand for at
least an hour before trying to use it. Beat the egg and the milk and a
little sugar and salt, stir in the flour (not too much, don't want to
activate the gluten), add in the melted butter.

After about an hour, give it another light stir. Heat up the pan, brush
with butter (even if it's non-stick--for flavor), add in the batter and
swirl. You'll probably have to toss the first one or two....they always
come out a little funky.

Enjoy!

On 9/19/03 11:12 PM, in article , "Danni"
wrote:


The trick to a really good crepe is allowing the batter to stand for at
least an hour before trying to use it. Beat the egg and the milk and a
little sugar and salt, stir in the flour (not too much, don't want to
activate the gluten), add in the melted butter.

Yup. I remember that part. Makes it hard to decide to make crepes last
minute. ;-(

joe