Last night's quickfire challenge was a taste test in which the chefs, blindfolded, had to show off "their palettes" by figuring out which of the two ingredients set before them was higher quality. And the show defined higher quality as, wait for it, more expensive. So there would be a $3 maple syrup and a $9 maple syrup, a $3 caviar and a $12 caviar, a $3 sake and a $10 sake. It's possible that the crack Top Chef intern team scoured the earth for ingredients of vastly different quality, and the show to simplify things, simply used the price to represent that work. But it sure seemed odd. Particularly when the chefs were getting it wrong. After all, if they like the cheaper maple syrup, the lower level caviar, that sort of puts the lie to one of the show's basic premises, no? After all, these are all fine chefs who're focusing every ounce of their being on fully tasting and understanding the ingredient before them. if they can't tell the difference, or even think the cheaper version is superior, is it really correct to say that the more expensive, but less preferred, ingredient is "better" or higher quality? Next question: after eliminating one-half of the show's lesbian duo, is this lead graphic on the Top Chef web page in bad taste? (I moved the graphic below the fold so folks don't have to see who was taken out this week)
