[squirrelrj]

Isn't a line cook just a cook who works on the line?

as opposed to "station cooks" working where, the basement?

If you're Chef de partie of "saute" you're working the saute station, if you're grill chef de partie, you're on the grill station, etc... these are all line positions.

Chef de partie

A chef de partie, also known as a "station chef" or "line cook",[sup][2][/sup] is in charge of a particular area of production. In large kitchens, each station chef might have several cooks and/or assistants. In most kitchens, however, the station chef is the only worker in that department. Line cooks are often divided into a hierarchy of their own, starting with "first cook", then "second cook", and so on as needed.

 

[sibs]

Well, as opposed to a prep cook...who may well work in the basement.  In my opinion, that definition is a little confusing in that chef de partie is a specification that means 'in charge of', and it makes no sense to speficy that someone is in charge of a section if they are the only one working there.  Thus, if I'm the only GM, I'm not going to call myself chef de partie GM.  That would be ridiculous.  It only makes sense to use the term 'chef de partie' if there are one or more cooks working in a section, and one of them is actually in charge.

 

[petemccracken]

... It only makes sense to use the term 'chef de partie' if there are one or more cooks working in a section, and one of them is actually in charge.

I respectfully beg to differ. In charge, IMHO, is not restricted to the management of personnel. For me in charge, in a commercial kitchen sense, means to be in charge of the equipment, mise en place, and production of that unit/station/facility as required, which may include additional personnel, i.e. chef de partie

Now, I do NOT speak French but I have been told that the French term partie means part, not party. For me, that means chef de partie translates to chief of the part (of the kitchen), not chief of the party ( a group of employees)

BTA, WTHDIK

 

[squirrelrj]

Well, as opposed to a prep cook...who may well work in the basement. In my opinion, that definition is a little confusing in that chef de partie is a specification that means 'in charge of', and it makes no sense to speficy that someone is in charge of a section if they are the only one working there. Thus, if I'm the only GM, I'm not going to call myself chef de partie GM. That would be ridiculous. It only makes sense to use the term 'chef de partie' if there are one or more cooks working in a section, and one of them is actually in charge.

A prep cook isn't a line cook, a chef de partie is.. why is this so hard to comprehend?

and surely it makes sense to specify that someone is in charge of a section, regardless of how many people work in that station.

Why call them "chef de cuisine" since they are in fact, the only one in charge of the food, no?

Either way you want to slice it, a chef de partie is still a line cook, they are on a line station, whether saute/grill/cold/dessert, those are line stations, where line cooks work.

 

[shootoo]

Well, as opposed to a prep cook...who may well work in the basement. In my opinion, that definition is a little confusing in that chef de partie is a specification that means 'in charge of', and it makes no sense to speficy that someone is in charge of a section if they are the only one working there. Thus, if I'm the only GM, I'm not going to call myself chef de partie GM. That would be ridiculous. It only makes sense to use the term 'chef de partie' if there are one or more cooks working in a section, and one of them is actually in charge.

If it's one or many, they're still in charge of that section. In charge of the section, not the people at the section. That's when executive and assistant and even commis come in to play depending on the size of the kitchen

 

[ed buchanan]

Same applies for chef d partie Gard' manger  . He is not the chef Garde Manger he works in that department  or simply is a helper.

 

[sibs]

I respectfully beg to differ. In charge, IMHO, is not restricted to the management of personnel. For me in charge, in a commercial kitchen sense, means to be in charge of the equipment, mise en place, and production of that unit/station/facility as required, which may include additional personnel, i.e. chef de partie

Now, I do NOT speak French but I have been told that the French term partie means part, not party. For me, that means chef de partie translates to chief of the part (of the kitchen), not chief of the party ( a group of employees)

BTA, WTHDIK

Okay Pete, I see your point. I do speak French, and your translation of 'partie' is correct. However, in every professional kitchen I have ever worked in here in Montreal, where we use mostly french terminology, and often work with people who are French from France, the term 'Chef de Partie' has been used exculsively in a hierachical sense. Additionally, anyone calling themselves chef de partie when there was not, in actuality, anyone working directly under them was likely to be ridiculed for their pretentions. It's certainly possible that the term has evolved over time, and/or in certain places, but I just wanted to share my experience with it.

BTW, what is BTA, WTHDIK?

 

[petemccracken]

...BTW, what is BTA, WTHDIK?

But Then Again, What The Heck Do I Know /img/vbsmilies/smilies/crazy.gif

 

[squirrelrj]

A Chef de partie can be used in a heirarchy sense if you want, especially if you are training or working with a commis under you, but any way you slice it, if the grill chef de partie is on the grill station, he or she is still a line cook.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-chef-de-partie.htm

 

[cheflayne]

Just curious about different people's views on kitchen hierarchy, how would you rank the following: saucier, tournant, partie

We all know the chef is in charge, then the sous, who is on third... besides abbott & costello?

 

[petemccracken]

Just curious about different people's views on kitchen heirachy, how would you rank the following: saucier, tournant, partie

We all know the chef is in charge, then the sous, who is on third... besides abbott & costello?

All of the above?? /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif They all report to the Chef/Sous, therefore, they are third in line.

 

[squirrelrj]

Just curious about different people's views on kitchen heirachy, how would you rank the following: saucier, tournant, partie

We all know the chef is in charge, then the sous, who is on third... besides abbott & costello?

Junior sous, if applicable..

If not, i'd want my saucier next in line, followed very closely by the roundsman.

 

[cheflayne]

Another question would be how goes the hierarchy for cook I, II, and III.

In California, III would be above II, and II would be above I. I have noticed that the reverse is true in Hawaii.

 

[petemccracken]

I'm by no means positive, however, I seem to remember that there is an entirely different classification in the UK and Australia.

Another question would be how goes the hierarchy for cook I, II, and III.

In California, III would be above II, and II would be above I. I have noticed that the reverse is true in Hawaii.