4 ms·
5-10 cookbooks a year sounds terrifying. The QA on those must be terrible--not sure how they could afford that number of recipe testers for each title. I tend n
by joshwa 18y ago
5-10 cookbooks a year sounds terrifying. The QA on those must be terrible--not sure how they could afford that number of recipe testers for each title. I tend not to buy any cookbook that has a number in the title or is part of a 'series'.
Saveur does one every few years, on different themes-- Saveur Cooks Classic Italian and Saveur Cooks Classic American are still doing pretty well-- they're great references for the classics.
- tptacek 18y agoNo, the QA on those cookbooks is better than the QA on most software. That's the point of Cooks Illustrated. You don't even have to trust me; read a CI recipe: they've documented everything they did wrong. They not kidding: they made that coffee cake 45-50 times to get it right. Also, check out their "board of advisors"; they're name-brand people. Bittman used to be on staff, and restaurant chefs are on their tasting panels. What's funny is, CI used to have a third Consumer Reports style section where they rated other cookbooks, by turning their (large) kitchen and staff loose on the recipes and evaluating the results. CI does a better job QA'ing other people's cookbooks than they do.