So, you're out to dinner....

[Jenise]

...and you order the Main Course Dungeness Crab Mac n' Cheese, or the Cassoulet. And it comes in this:

http://www.surlatable.com/product/id/125737.do?mr:referralID=2f3db56a-7940-11de-85a3-000423bb4e95

Are you disappointed? The bowl has an opening of about 4" in diameter and stands about 4" tall on the plate, including pedestal. The one pictured here is a 12 ounce, though this classic French lions head shape also comes in 24 and 34 ounce sizes. That's all there is on your plate.

We ate out at my very favorite local place last night with friends. It's so favorite that I've been there eight times since discovering it last August, the waiters all remember my not-so-easy-to-remember name, I've drug everybody I can in there, and I've been to no other local resto more than once in that time. The restaurant's style is Bistro--white tablecloth but casual with a strong European bent.

One of my friends ordered the Dungeness Crab Mac n' Cheese, and it came in one of these. I'm not certain of the quantity of food contained therein and I know this shape can be deceiving, but I'm certain of the bowl size and even bearing the tendency to deceive in mind, eyeballing it I would guess it could hold no more two cups, or 16 ounces, therefore it's more likely to be the 12 ounce size than the 24. There certainly wasn't three cups of macaroni in there.

At the same restaurant a few months ago a friend ordered cassoulet and it came in this. I felt real sorry for poor Ron because he's not a sophisticated gourmand, so based on the menu description and zero knowledge of cassoulet he expected a big hunk of duck, sausages AND white beans on the side. And instead he just got a stew. Worse, he'd ordered something else, I think a French onion soup first, and it was served in the same vessel.

On behalf of these friends I've felt disappointed each time I've seen those crocks come out. They just don't say "main course". And again the restaurant double-used these--the friend who ordered the mac n' cheese had previously been given this same bowl to use as a refuse bin for the shells on his mussels appetizer. In fact, he and his wife shared a mussels appy and both received their own individual white vessel to put their shells in--possibly for increased daintiness, but also no doubt because one wouldn't hold all the shells even though the size of the mussels appetizer was modest. Appropriate for an appetizer, but still modest.

Even if the quantity in those bowls is adequate as a main course and I'd argue it's undersized, to use the same bowl twice in the same meal for both appetizers and main courses seems to me bad form on the restaurant's part. A shallower bowl with a wider presentation would have seemed in better company with what the rest of us ordered (I had veal milanese).

What do you guys think?

[David M. Bueker]

From someone who is (somewhat futilely) trying to cut portion sizes I would be ok if the price was reasonable EXCEPT for the serving of apps and mains in the same vessel. Main courses are supposed to be bigger than the apps. That alone would torque me off.

Cannot imagine any place around here serving food in something like that! Maybe a four/five table joint with lace tablecloths and run by nanny.

I've used them in several restaurants - just for soup. For cassoulet I had the small copper All-Clad "brasiers".

[Jenise]

From someone who is (somewhat futilely) trying to cut portion sizes I would be ok if the price was reasonable EXCEPT for the serving of apps and mains in the same vessel. Main courses are supposed to be bigger than the apps. That alone would torque me off.

The prices are reasonable--that course was probably $18. And Jim didn't go hungry. But that bowl, especially since it had been seen earlier in the meal, had zero visual impact. There was no ogling of it the way there was my veal or Ron's steak, carefully sliced and served in a perfect semi circle around a mound of caramelized onion mashed potato au poivre.

[David M. Bueker]

I am going to throw something out there because I ran into it at our local Pan-Asian place. I wonder if they got a boat load of those "bowls" on a close out/going out of business sale somewhere & are just trying to see how they can use a big pile of them.

I say this because the Asian spot I speak of now has some hellishly huge plates/bowls/etc that they use for apps & mains (making the apps look so tiny you can barely see them) that they got cheap when a local supplier went belly up. They are struggling with how to work with all these new dishes that they got at a price they could not pass up in this economy.

1. It doesn't seem the right bowl for crab mac & cheese. (What kind of cheese, btw?) I'd think something flatter to allow some nice crustiness with every bite. And there ought to be a side plate of something trivial, even if the customer didn't order a side.
2. It's way too "home cooking" to use the same bowl twice in the same meal for the same table. A restaurant with any pretensions at all needs to pay more attention to presentation than that, and you say that your veal was nicely presented.

Yet. Thirty years ago when I spent a month in Europe, I found there was a class of restaurant where you got what you ordered, nothing more, nothing less. And that class of restaurant probably had three kinds of dish on its shelf. Very country French.

But somehow, it doesn't seem "right", even in northwestern Washington State.

John

I think that this is a classic shape for french onion soup.It is certainly not appropriate for a main course.
The shape is designed to hold the heat of the soup under the crust of toasted bread covered with cheese. The small opening means that it is not necessary to overload the onion soup with the topping.
It doesn't speak well of the restaurant to adopt a "one dish fits all" approach.

Jenise, I have that exact bowl, but I think it came from Tuesday Morning. I would never have thought to put food in it. I bought it to hold a tiny fern that I'd picked up.

There is a restaurant we frequent in the desert that uses this type of serving bowl for half of what is on their menu. Len ordered their fish and chips and it came in this. It looked (and was) very skimpy.

[Jenise]

Jenise, I have that exact bowl, but I think it came from Tuesday Morning. I would never have thought to put food in it. I bought it to hold a tiny fern that I'd picked up.

There is a restaurant we frequent in the desert that uses this type of serving bowl for half of what is on their menu. Len ordered their fish and chips and it came in this. It looked (and was) very skimpy.

It's perfect for soups as Chef and others pointed out, and it even works well in this restaurant for serving fries which they do in the correct, twice fried method and serve with mussels. But again, that underscores how weird it is when something that serves a side dish is also used for a main. Sounds like everyone agrees with me on this--now, should I direct the chef to our website to read everyone's comments?

John, the cheese was gruyere which was actually very underpowered for the dish, it needed more punch. A bit of parmesan or some creamy muenster would have been good additions. But that's a separate issue.

Thanks for the cheese note, Jenise. I've never made or eaten mac & cheese with crab and I was curious. Seems to me the cheese would be key to the dish, even served in a wonky bowl!

John