Dave the Cook

My opinion is that the "aging," such as it is, adds more to the flavor than the roasting method. But I also think that a less watery roast will cook more evenly, which is a plus. I don't know how much weight is lost in home aging compared to traditional dry aging (where the answer is a scientific "quite a bit"). If you start with the primal cut and follow it all the way to the table, a rib roast (especially beef) is an incredible model of waste: big hunks of fat and bone come off at the processing plant; moisture is lost through aging; more moisture and fat is rendered through cooking (up to 40% compared to the trimmed, aged product); then there's the ribs themselves, which, while satisfyingly gnawable (ought to be a word), are in and of themselves dead weight. To me, the idea of searing first, then cooking slow, is counter-intuitive when it comes to large items to be cooked with dry heat. There's also this notion I have that the bigger the hunk of meat, the less risky any cooking method is, and the less difference any particular technique will have. In the end, the heat and muscle work it out on their own. If you were to sear a big roast, then stick it in an oven for 3-1/2 hours, what would you expect to have happened to the effects of searing? Would it not have gotten brown and crusted on the outside anyway? Do you really think you would be limiting juice loss in any significant way? This doesn't even consider what an awkward proposition searing a four-rib roast would be. For a big, rounded hunk of meat, searing, a technique that requires mostly flat sides to work, seems much less controllable than an oven at 550. The ideal roast has no well-done parts--it's a brown crust surrounding evenly rare or medium rare meat, with no surrounding gray strata. Brown. Pink. That's all. I think what Brown addresses (though if he said it explicitly I missed it) is that by slow-roasting first, you coax soluble proteins and sugars to the surface in the process. Then you blast it with heat to brown the proteins quickly, and you're done. If you go high-heat to start, it takes much longer to brown, and the roast gets overcooked near the surface much more easily--fewer protein chains and sugars means longer browning time, plus you get carryover from searing or a high-temp oven. Not to mention that you'll render away part of the fat, which I think serves a protective function. All of the above is theory on my part. When I was in the resturant biz, we just stuck 'em in the oven after an oil/salt/pepper massage, roasted at 275 or 300? (can't remember exactly, but it was on the low side), and they came out beautifully every time--crusty exterior, med-rare to rare centers, and chewy, beefy-tasting end cuts. Of course, they had been aged 120 days! The problem is that I don't have the budget to do a comparison. Unless, that is, I can convince my dining companions that we should have it both for Christmas and New Year's...

We gave a standing rib the Good Eats treatment last New Year's. Thumbs up. We're doing it again next Wednesday.

Reminding us all that you get what you pay for.

No need for refrigeration. The smoke and salt content makes it an unlikely target for microbial or insect attack. An uncooked Smithfield ham will keep for at least a year, if stored in the proverbial "cool, dry place." According to the first post, Jim's had his for two years, so I guess we'll keep our fingers crossed.

I agree, Jaymes. It also seems to me that dried corn was a likely ingredient, and also that wheat flour was as probable a thickener as masa. Leftover coffee sounds reasonable; chiles, aromatics and herbs were probably wild and picked along the trail. Although I include a little tomato in my chili, I doubt its authenticity, along with chocolate and beer (both of which I also use).

Please explain "arch punch."

Oh not that old biscuit again. BD, do me a favor. Never disuade a yank from that opinion. It means more great scallops for the rest of us. In 25 years, I have never EVER seen this happen. One of those urban legends. Nick I've never seen it either, in 40 years of scallop gluttony. I believe the story was lent considerable veracity by the book (not the movie) Jaws, in which the scam is described.

So what do I do with this here bacon?

In addition to Nick's visual checklist, I would add (as Jin pointed out earlier) that properly treated sea scallops will not be snow-white. They should be off-white to light ivory. Very slightly off-topic: if you go for bay scallops, watch out for those dark-ivory to light brown little guys (they actually look like they've already been cooked), which are calico scallops but often sold as bays. Real bay scallops can be very good. I wouldn't even give calicos to my cat.

A recent short but excellent article by the inestimable Robert Wolke. Includes lucid tri-poly explanation. here Washington Post; may require free registration (I can't remember).

Not if you're from Smithfield. However, I think the preparation method is the same: salt-cured (though it varies somewhat by producer; some also use pepper, and sugar amy be allowed), then cold-smoked and aged. Genuine Smithfield hams must be processed in a certain area in Virginia (the protection is similar to that enjoyed by Vidalia onions), and the hogs must be fed a particular diet (used to be peanuts, but I think they've loosened this restriction). Note that the originating hog doesn't have to be a resident of Virginia. I wouldn't serve it as a main course, but as, or as part of, an hors d'oeuvre, amuse or side, it's stellar. Also, as you recommend, as part of a healthy breakfast.

And fucking, well, that's like, dessert.

This is a delicacy with which I am not familiar. I have so many questions.

Sounds fabulous, Nick. Peekytoe and Jonah crab are the same thing?

Some of us don't need that kind of help.

Nick: When you wanted to eat our shrimp, we not only let you, we encouraged you. We told you where to get it. We gave you tips--secret information--things known only to us and our Southern brethren, because we considered you one of us--and it was our pleasure. We said, in effect, "bon appetit--enjoy!" We did not say, "This is not for you. People from the North should not have this. They are too cold to be able to truly appreciate it." No, no, no--we have a bounty, and we are glad to share with our dear friends from the frozen North. Do you think we don't get cold? When the temperature dips, though even only into the high 20s, with not a chance in hell that it will snow in the next two years, do you think we feel not the sharp bite of winter's teeth? When chilled, do we not freeze? Now, please do what your conscience must surely tell you is fair.

OK, kids. Clue me in. I eschew split pea (it's the color, not the texture), but I like black bean and navy bean soup, and they both seem to have a certain graininess that I assumed was part of it, like the bits of corn between your teeth when you eat it off the cob. No? I thought split pea cooked relatively quickly, along the lines of lentils. Four hours seems like a long time. And though I've never had it, Suzanne! Wienies? Seems like a big meaty hambone would be de rigeur.

Yes: "Strangely, I haven't had fur for a fortnight." (btw, you made me spit on my keyboard). Right. Not necessarily the best recipes, not the prettiest, not the most gracefully written or illustrated. Just the most used. I'm about to get my third copy. Shall we discuss the relative merits of the different editions? Or has that been done already?

Well, this will teach me to think before writing. First, let me say that if you made me choose between Paula Prentiss and Katherine Ross, I'd probably melt down. Second, I have no problem with the politics of the movie The Stepford Wives, such as they are. Second, part B: I have a passel of feminist credentials, which I will be glad to detail for you upon request. Third (and final, you'll be glad to hear), I don't think Levin wanted a political movie; he's a Storyteller. Politics is just another tool in the box for him. The screenwriter, William Goldman, is the best. So I guess it's the direction. I can't remember who it was; I only remember the factoid that he also directed one of my favorite British farces, The Wrong Box. Or maybe it was the times, which were ripe for the spin that got put on the movie, which should have been a creepy, cautionary tale rather than a polemic, and not a very well done one at that. It's what happens when story and character get put at the kids table so the Big Ideas can hold forth in the dining room. For whatever reason, the women are actually more appealing after their 'conversion.' Before they've been Stepforded, they're really, well, whiny. I kind of wanted something bad to happen to them. Fourth (fooled ya): I haven't seen the movie in at least 20 years, so I may be full of it, as I often am. If so, blame it on poor memory.

Jin: As someone with your level of gourmetude(sp.?) I understand your feelings about "Joy." It can seem very 50's ish and, as you call it, bland. But I feel that, for a BEGINNER, it is an unintimidating and broad source text. And it ain't 50's "add a cup of mushroom soup" cooking...thank God! Just plain cooking. I still refer to it for, say, biscuits. And I ain't no Stepford doll. (Tho' sometimes it looks pretty good! ) And, of course, anything by St. Jacques. Quel homme! Quel chef! Well put, Maggie. Joy is still the go-to guide in my kitchen. I of course have a slightly different take on Stepfordism.

I crave fish and chips every day. (Wait--does this belong in the Off-Topic Thoughts thread?)

It's this thread, Steve. One page back.

[ot] For the record, Ira Levin, 1972. Not a great writer, but boy, he could devise some creepy plots: Rosemary's Baby, The Boys from Brazil, Deathtrap... [/ot]

I think you have some unresolved issues with your mother. Who undoubtedly used it. Hardly. Welsh with Italian parents. edit: Also, 1950s, long before it was published. Actually, Jin, Joy was first published in...1931.

klosh with a long 'o' You're welcome.