I was watching a cooking program on TV yesterday, and one cook was
making chile sauce out of two fresh pasilla chiles while the other was
making her sauce out of two fresh ancho chiles. They both split their
peppers, removed the seeds and veins and fried them in a little oil in
a wok, while pressing them down with a spatula.

All the Spanish language recipes I read usually call for the chiles to
be "asados" or "roasted" which I take to really mean is to hold them
near an open flame, searing the skin.

I can imagine an Aztec holding a pepper over a flame and browning it
like a child toasting a marshmallow.

But, if you didn't fry or roast the pepper at all, if you just cut it
up and threw it into a pot to boil for an hour before you threw it into
a blender to liquify if, would there be any noticeable
difference in the flavor of the chile sauce?

It seems that there would be no textural difference, if the object is
to turn the solid chiles, garlic, cilantro, tomatillos or tomatoes, and
epazote into a liquid sauce.

The two cooks finally strained out any big pieces remaining in the
their chile puree so it looked like tomato sauce before pouring it over
the meat and cooking the meat in the sauce.

So, why bother with frying the chiles?

skimmer wrote:

> It seems that there would be no textural difference, if the object is
> to turn the solid chiles, garlic, cilantro, tomatillos or tomatoes, and
> epazote into a liquid sauce.
>
> The two cooks finally strained out any big pieces remaining in the
> their chile puree so it looked like tomato sauce before pouring it over
> the meat and cooking the meat in the sauce.
>
> So, why bother with frying the chiles?
>

Frying, browning or toasting brings out a different flavor entirely.
Sure texture will be about the same but not neccesarily the color and
flavor. With all the above items you mention above with exception to the
cilantro I prefer them browned on hot iron or fried before the preparation.