kretch

I just tried the Kroger on Briarcliff, at Johnson, and there was nothing -- three staff members consulted with each other and none had even heard of curing salt/pink salt (which I expained to them in detail - sodium nitrate, nitrite, etc) before. Which Kroger did you go to? Thanks for your help/interest. Also, just to be clear, we're both talking about this sort of product, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curing_salt http://www.butcher-packer.com/pages-produc...uring-salt.html Toco Hills: Yes, kosher deli there, and kosher butcher/poultry/etc as well. Huge selection of dry kosher goods as well.

Thanks. I actually asked the guy behind the kosher deli counter at the Toco Hills Kroger a couple days ago; he told me that they didn't carry it, and that he had no clue where to find it. (The project here is to make home-made corned beef.) Based on that conversation I got the sense that these salts were not readily available at regular markets. I'll try again.

Looking to pick up some pink salt/curing salt. Thanks for any help.

That's right: wine pairings, wines by the glas, wines by the bottle, cocktails, bottled water....everything includes service at an implied 20% rate. You could tip more if you want, but as I recall from my last visit, there wasn't even a tip line when the credit card voucher was presented for signature. ← 6/16/07 there was a tip line marked "additional gratuity" or something similar.

Not upmarket (not that you indicated you care) but I've always found the soft shells at Snockey's to be perfectly, greaselessly, fried. And cheap. I haven't been there in a few years but I can't imagine things have changed. 2nd and Washington.

This thread calls for a link to Sasha Issenberg's new book: http://www.thesushieconomy.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Sushi-Economy-Global...87993750&sr=8-1 Sasha lives in Center City and is an alumnus of Philly Mag. Some may recall an article he wrote for Philly Mag several years back about the wholesale purveryors who sell to Philly area sushi restaurants. The book sort of grew out of that piece.

Three years posting here and I've finally found my signature line. Thank you.

I heard someone RAVE about this place three years ago, and I meant to explore. Never did. Forgot about it until I read this post. But like, this girl found religion in La Creole's wings.

Me three on the lobster. Was underwhelmed.

Speaking of charring, something I've been wondering... BLT makes a proud point, on their menu, that they blast their broilers (presumably for finishing) at 1700 degrees. I've gotten the sense that just about everyone else, NYC or elsewhere, maxes out at around 1200. If that's right (is it?) what's the explanation - if there's a meaningful explanation - for the difference? 500 degrees is, in cooking terms, so many standard deviations, isn't it? EDIT: Actually, I may be thinking of QM, not BLT, but either way, one of them boasts about a 1700 degree broil, and I'm still wondering what the explanation is.

RE: wine flight. In mid-June, the only wine pairing they offered us was @$175, not $250. They were extremely generous, topping off our glasses at appropriate intervals throughout each course. They left us the balance of several bottles towards which we had indicated -- quietly and not so quietly -- a particular preference. A member of our party who quietly showed an indifference to our cheese course was quickly provided with both a new plate, after he was asked about his cheese preferences, and a new paired wine to accompany it. Bottom line: We were a party of five, four of us got the foie supp @$30 and one person got the Wagyu supp @$75 (huge mistake IMO; it was offered against the Eslysian Fields' lamb, which was, for me, the standout plate of the evening.) After splitting everything evenly five ways, it came out to $503 per person. (Food $1445, wine $875, tax $195. Service included.) Here's what we got for $175, 6/16/07, in Per Se's words: Pierre Gimonnet, Champagne, Blanc de Blancs, Cuis, 1er Cru, France MV Zilliken, Riesling, "Ockfener Bockstein," Kabinett, Saar, Germany 2001 & Bert Simon, Riesling, "Serrig Wurzberg," Goldkapsel, Auslese, Mosel, Germany 1989 Colin-Deleger, Chassagne-Montrachet, "En Remilly," 1er Cru, Burgundy, France 2001 Walter Hansel, Pinot Noir, "Cuvee Alyce," Russian River Valley, California 2004 Camigliano, Brunello di Montalcino, Italy 2001 Chateau Montrose, Saint-Estephe, France 1999 Domaine du Viking, Vouvray, "Tendre," Loire Valley, France 2004 Jorge Ordonez & Co., Moscatel, "#1," Malaga, Spain 2005 Cossart Gordon, Madeira, Bual, 10 year MV

I'd love to know if they're reflecting the windfall on their tax returns.

Hm. I suppose I should have read through the thread before my post above. Mind sharing the measures/proportions? I'd love to make this drink at home.

Stopped in Saturday for after-dinner drinks. I'm not a cocktail drinker but I ordered the "Aloha Mr. Hand" (sake, watermelon, mint) simply on grounds of its brilliant name. Not bad, but not especially memorable. Second round, however, I went for the Pimms drink above. Absolutely phenomenal. Made me wonder why I don't get cocktails more often. So much more refreshing than a regular Pimms cup, which I used to drink begrudgingly when I worked in the UK. I ended up having two of them and could have easily gone for a third. The menu called it a "Pimms iced tea" and the ingredients are listed as Pimms, gin, ginger, and lemon. Garnish is diced cucumber. I asked the server what the recipe was; best I can recall (possibly wrong on the proportions) was a two count of Pimms, a smaller measure of gin, splash of ginger ale, and... I don't remember what he said about the lemon. Maybe lemon juice, but I'm guessing "lemon" in the British sense, meaning lemon-lime soda, ie, Sprite or 7-up. In any event, it was the best designer cocktail I've had, ever. Tom

I didn't say it was a long time ago for me. Just seems like a long time ago.

Any of the attorneys on here with expertise in tort law want to opine on whether Laban could have a claim/countersuit against Plotkin? 1L Torts seems like a long, long time ago...

We had a 9:15 there Saturday night. About 15 minutes after we sat down, I spotted a friend at a table across from us. We chatted briefly; he said that his group was about halfway through their meal. By the by, the servers were extraordinarily gracious. We didn't finish eating until 1:45 and they still gave us - unsolicited - a detailed tour of the kitchen afterwards. Tom

Agreed.

Clearly TX law doesn't bind PA. I went with this case because it seemed most on point of everything available in case law, at least at first glance. Anyway, agreed on points 1, 2, and 4, and to a limited extent, point 3. Most importantly, I'm in agreement with all of point #4, especially the first two sentences.

What I take away from the opinion, at least on first and second pass, is this: a bailee (the restaurant) can't say "we were only taking possession of the property of which we had knowledge; we can't be held accountable for the property that may have been inside that property." The court seems to be saying that anything that could reasonably be expected to be in the bag, the bailee is responsible for. And certainly, I think we'd all agree, a laptop is as reasonably expected by any sensible person to be inside a specially constructed backpack (Crumpler, Targus, etc) than 10K+ in diamonds and pearls are expected to be sitting in the bottom of someone's clutch. As far as your question about what determines reasonable - that's a whole issue upon itself. I'll save that for lunch.

Final thought: even if it seems sensible that we should be always held responsible for our carelessness, the law doesn't agree. Again from the opinion: Contrary to appellants' contention, we find that there was indeed a constructive bailment of the purse. The delivery and acceptance were evidenced in the acts of Mrs. Caranas' unintentionally leaving her purse behind in the hotel restaurant and the bus boy, a hotel employee, picking it up and taking it to the cashier who accepted the purse as a lost or misplaced item. The delivery need not be a knowingly intended act on the part of Mrs. Caranas if it is apparent that were she, the quasi or constructive bailor, aware of the circumstances (here the chattel's being misplaced) she would have desired the person finding the article to have kept it safely for its subsequent return to her. See 8 Am. Jur. 2d Bailments Sec. 53, p. 959 (1963); and 8 C.J.S. Bailments Sec. 15, pp. 360-362 (1962).

As I recall Doc just the bag but then the legal ramifications of the bag's content's complicates things. ← Regarding the matter of the contents of the forgotten bag: the opinion speaks favorably to our hypothetical plaintiff, if you agree that a laptop in a shoulder bag is no more surprising in 2007 than thousands of dollars of jewelry was in a purse was in 1972: Appellants urge that if a bailment is found it existed only as to "the purse and the usual petty cash or credit cards found therein" and not to the jewelry of which the hotel had no actual notice. This exact question so far as we can determine has never been squarely put before the Texas Courts, but as appellants concede, the general rule in other jurisdictions is that a bailee is liable not only for lost property of which he has actual knowledge but also the property he could reasonably expect to find contained within the bailed property. ... We believe appellants' contention raises the question of whether or not it was foreseeable that such jewelry might be found in a woman's purse in a restaurant of a hotel such as the Shamrock Hilton under these circumstances. ... We cannot say as a matter of law that there is no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that it was foreseeable that such jewelry might be found in a purse under such circumstances as here presented. It is known that people who are guests in hotels such as the Shamrock Hilton, a well-known Houston hotel, not infrequently bring such expensive jewelry with them, and it does not impress us as unreasonable under the circumstances that one person might have her jewelry in her purse either awaiting a present occasion to wear it or following reclaiming it from the hotel safe in anticipation of leaving the hotel.

Not Tulane amigo. Lunch is on me at least once, sure thing.

Disclaimer 1: This is not legal advice. Disclaimer 2: This opinion posted below is public record and to my knowledge posting/sharing it does not violate any copyrights or similar protections. Classic case of bailment. If litigated restaurant ought to be found liable. Shamrock Hilton V. Caranas (1972) is instructive: Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas, 488 S.W.2d 151: JUDGES: John M. Barron, Associate Justice. Sam D. Johnson, Associate Justice. OPINION BY: BARRON OPINION: This is an appeal in an alleged bailment case from a judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of plaintiffs below. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, were lodging as paying guests at the Shamrock Hilton Hotel in Houston on the evening of September 4, 1966, when they took their dinner in the hotel restaurant. After completing the meal, Mr. and Mrs. Caranas, plaintiffs, departed the dining area leaving her purse behind. The purse was found by the hotel bus boy who, pursuant to the instructions of the hotel, dutifully delivered the forgotten item to the restaurant cashier, a Mrs. Luster. The testimony indicates that some short time thereafter the cashier gave the purse to a man other than Mr. Caranas who came to claim it. There is no testimony on the question of whether identification was sought by the cashier. The purse allegedly contained $5.00 in cash, some credit cards, and ten pieces of jewelry said to be worth $13,062. The misplacement of the purse was realized the following morning, at which time plaintiffs notified the hotel authorities of the loss. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging negligent delivery of the purse to an unknown person and seeking a recovery for the value of the purse and its contents. The trial was to a jury which found that the cashier was negligent in delivering the purse to someone other than plaintiffs, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the loss of the purse. The jury further found that plaintiffs were negligent in leaving the purse containing the jewelry in the hotel dining room, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of the loss. A motion for judgment n.o.v. and to disregard findings with respect to the findings that plaintiffs' negligence was a proximate cause of the loss of the purse and its contents was granted, and judgment was entered by the trial court for plaintiffs in the amount of $11,252.00 plus interest and costs. Shamrock Hilton Hotel and Hilton Hotels Corporation have perfected this appeal. ... Contrary to appellants' contention, we find that there was indeed a constructive bailment of the purse. The delivery and acceptance were evidenced in the acts of Mrs. Caranas' unintentionally leaving her purse behind in the hotel restaurant and the bus boy, a hotel employee, picking it up and taking it to the cashier who accepted the purse as a lost or misplaced item. The delivery need not be a knowingly intended act on the part of Mrs. Caranas if it is apparent that were she, the quasi or constructive bailor, aware of the circumstances (here the chattel's being misplaced) she would have desired the person finding the article to have kept it safely for its subsequent return to her. See 8 Am. Jur. 2d Bailments Sec. 53, p. 959 (1963); and 8 C.J.S. Bailments Sec. 15, pp. 360-362 (1962). As stated above, the evidence conclusively showed facts from which there was established a bailment with the Caranases as bailors and the hotel as bailee. The evidence also showed that the hotel, as bailee, had received Mrs. Caranas' purse and had not returned it on demand. Such evidence raised a presumption that the hotel had failed to exercise ordinary care in protecting the appellees' property. When the hotel failed to come forward with any evidence to the effect that it had exercised ordinary care, that the property had been stolen, or that the property had been lost, damaged or destroyed by fire or by an act of God, the appellees' proof ripened into proof by which the hotel's primary liability was established as a matter of law. Trammell v. Whitlock, 150 Tex. 500, 242 S.W. 2d 157 (1951); Baird v. Williams, 56 S.W. 2d 893 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1933, no writ). ... Further, this bailment was one for the mutual benefit of both parties. Appellees were paying guests in the hotel and in its dining room. Appellant hotel's practice of keeping patrons' lost personal items until they could be returned to their rightful owners, as reflected in the testimony, is certainly evidence of its being incidental to its business, as we would think it would be for almost any commercial enterprise which caters to the general public. Though no direct charge is made for this service there is indirect benefit to be had in the continued patronage of the hotel by customers who have lost chattels and who have been able to claim them from the management. Having found this to have been a bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties, we hold that the appellants owed the appellees the duty of reasonable care in the return of the purse and jewelry, and the hotel is therefore liable for its ordinary negligence. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Ratcliff & Lanier, 253 S.W. 253 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1923). Appellants urge that if a bailment is found it existed only as to "the purse and the usual petty cash or credit cards found therein" and not to the jewelry of which the hotel had no actual notice. This exact question so far as we can determine has never been squarely put before the Texas Courts, but as appellants concede, the general rule in other jurisdictions is that a bailee is liable not only for lost property of which he has actual knowledge but also the property he could reasonably expect to find contained within the bailed property. See and compare Note, Bailment -- Articles Left in Automobiles, 10 Baylor L. Rev. 216, 217-218 (1958). To the extent that appellants contend that Barnette v. Casey, 124 W. Va. 143, 19 S.E. 2d 621 (W. Va. 1942), Samples v. Geary, 292 S.W. 1066 (Kansas City Ct. App. 1927) and Wendt v. Sley System Garages, Inc., 124 Pa. Super. 224, 188 A. 624 (1936) are dispositive of this question, we decline to follow them. We believe appellants' contention raises the question of whether or not it was foreseeable that such jewelry might be found in a woman's purse in a restaurant of a hotel such as the Shamrock Hilton under these circumstances. Although the burden may rest with the appellees to prove that the jewelry was a part of the total bailment and the issue of whether it was reasonably foreseeable that such jewelry might be contained within the lost purse ordinarily should have been submitted by appellees, it remains for the hotel to object to the omission of the issue if it wishes to avoid the possibility of deemed findings by the Court. Rule 279, TEX. R. CIV. P. We cannot say as a matter of law that there is no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that it was foreseeable that such jewelry might be found in a purse under such circumstances as here presented. It is known that people who are guests in hotels such as the Shamrock Hilton, a well-known Houston hotel, not infrequently bring such expensive jewelry with them, and it does not impress us as unreasonable under the circumstances that one person might have her jewelry in her purse either awaiting a present occasion to wear it or following reclaiming it from the hotel safe in anticipation of leaving the hotel. We find that the question of whether it is reasonably foreseeable that a woman, under the circumstances of this case, might keep jewelry in a purse which is determinative of whether there was a bailment of jewelry and whether the negligence in losing the purse was a proximate cause of losing the jewelry, is an omitted issue in the grounds of recovery to which the submitted issues are reasonably or necessarily referable. Appellants were on notice that recovery was sought primarily for the value of the jewelry and that the only ground for recovery was the hotel's negligence with respect to the bailment, purse and contents. This is reflected in appellants' second amended original answer where they allege that there was no bailment as to the jewelry within the purse. The record reflects no timely objection to the issues submitted or to the omitting of a special issue, and therefore in support of the judgment and in accord with TEX. R. CIV. P. 279, we deem it to be found that one might reasonably expect to find valuable jewelry within a purse under the circumstances of this case in support of the judgment below. It follows that the findings of negligence and proximate cause of the loss of the purse apply to the jewelry as well, which is deemed to be a part of the bailment. There was no error in the judgment insofar as it was complained that there was no bailment of the jewelry and that there was no connection between the findings of negligence and proximate cause as regards the purse and the jewelry. Appellant's final point of error complains of the trial court's granting of appellees' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and disregarding the jury's findings on special issues that appellees' leaving the purse was negligence and a proximate cause of the loss of the jewelry. In support of this contention appellants cite Southwestern Hotel Co. v. Rogers, 183 S.W. 2d 751 (Tex. Civ. App. -- El Paso 1944), aff'd 143 Tex. 343, 184 S.W. 2d 835 (1945) and Driskill Hotel Co. v. Anderson, 19 S.W. 2d 216 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Austin 1929, no writ), for the proposition that contributory negligence of a guest of a hotel is an absolute defense to a claim for jewelry or money lost in the hotel. Both cases, however, are distinguishable on the facts in that here the loss occurred after appellees had relinquished possession of the purse and its contents, and the hotel alone had assumed responsibility for the items. The case of Motsenbocker v. Wyatt, 369 S.W. 2d 319 (Tex. Sup. 1963) is similarly distinguishable. There the mother of the injured child, Mrs. Wyatt, allowed her daughter to go outside to play. The child disobeyed her mother by going to the park where the defendant, Mr. Motsenbocker, found her. The defendant tried to take the child to her home. She was injured when Motsenbocker's vehicle accidentally ran over the child. The Supreme Court held it to be error for the court of civil appeals to find contrary to jury findings that as a matter of law there was no evidence of plaintiff's negligence and that such was a proximate cause of the child's injuries. The theory of "new and independent cause" was not here submitted or defined by the trial court. In any event the Motsenbocker case is distinguishable for the reasons similar to those set out above, i.e., that the parent did not give up the control of and the responsibility for supervising the child, nor was there any arrangement for the parties' mutual benefit involved. We find Vollmer v. Stoneleigh-Maple Terrace, 226 S.W. 2d 926 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 1950, writ ref'd), cited by appellees, to be in point. There the plaintiff was a guest in the Stoneleigh Hotel and paid monthly to park his automobile in the hotel's adjacent garage. On the evening in question he drove his car to the hotel entrance and turned it over to an employee of the defendant who parked it in its usual spot. While the employee was parking another car, he heard the noise of the starting motor and arrived just in time to see plaintiff's car being driven away. The jury found that the defendant was guilty of several acts of negligence, each of which was a proximate cause of the loss of the vehicle. It also found that the plaintiff, Vollmer, was negligent in accepting the garage facilities as furnished by the defendant; in failing to keep a proper lookout for his own automobile; in failing to remove the keys from the automobile; and in failing to see that there was a sufficient number of attendants to guard his automobile. Each of these acts was found to be a proximate cause. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant and rendered judgment for plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff's contributory negligence was not a proximate cause as a matter of law. The Court stated: "As appellant (plaintiff) aptly points out, while the car was in the possession of defendant the duty of care as between the parties rested solely upon it, plaintiff being relieved of further duties in connection with a proper lookout, safeguarding of keys, etc." 226 S.W. 2d at 928. The bus boy and cashier assumed possession and control of the purse per instructions of the hotel with respect to articles misplaced or lost by customers. This assumption of possession was as complete as that of defendant's employee in Vollmer v. Stoneleigh-Maple Terrace, supra. In each instance, once the bailee assumed possession he alone had the duty to safeguard the bailed article. We find therefore under these facts that the negligence of Mrs. Caranas was not a cause ". . . which in a natural and continuous sequence produces an event . . ." of this nature. The trial court's action in disregarding special issue number eight pertaining to proximate cause is therefore authorized and is proper under the circumstances. See Phoenix Refining Co. v. Tips, 125 Tex. 69, 72, 81 S.W. 2d 60, 61 (1935); Bell v. Campbell, 434 S.W. 2d 117 (Tex. Sup. 1968); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223, 38 S.W. 162, 164 (1896). The active cause which produced the loss was wholly independent of the negligence of Mrs. Caranas, and the hotel's primary duty of ordinary care to its paying guest was clear. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Outstanding. Thanks. The Keller addition is certainly allowed since it's the only one on the list that I own. Thanks in particular for including #9 since I've had this: http://www.amazon.com/Charcuterie-Craft-Sa...76590405&sr=8-1 on my shopping list for quite a while. I'll go with your rec instead. Okay, one more request if you would: Top ten (or however many, at your preference; hell, if you want to, add the next ten cookbooks, if you care to) non-cookbook culinary books. For example, I'd imagine McGee is a must-have? What else, short of Upton Sinclair? Thanks...